IICptMillerII

This is a really good summary, and has always been my understanding of what Combat Mission is trying to simulate. CM does not simulate the road march, or even the assembly area. CM starts at the line of departure. 
Yes, its true that some battles "spill over" from their initial battlespace and develop into larger battles. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu went from an operation centered around a building with 4 secured corners (essentially a city block) to a sizable chunk of the city itself. CM can simulate this. Instead of having the entire Battle of Mogadishu in one massive map, it is simply broken up into the phases of the battle. The first battle would be centered around the target building. The second would be centered around the Rangers moving from the target building to the first crash site. The third battle would center around securing the first crash site, so on and so forth. Would it be more fun if you could just do everything on one massive map with unlimited time? Arguably. The fact remains, that whether or not this would be fun, it is beyond the scope of Combat Mission. 
Steel Beasts is a fantastic tank sim, and one that I personally enjoy very much. However it is very important to keep in mind what the purpose of that sim is. Most casual players of the sim only fight battles, however this is far from the actual purpose of the sim. Steel Beasts is designed to teach tankers and tank formations how to conduct all possible operations, which includes road marches, how to drive in formation, etc. In fact, the combat in Steel Beasts is secondary to the 'learn to maneuver' element. Steel Beasts has large maps because it wants to simulate both moving to the assembly area, then the attack position, then the line of departure, as well as simulating the actual combat that occurs. Combat Mission is NOT designed to teach the player how to road march a battalion, or how to establish a forward command post, etc. Combat Mission is only designed to simulate the actual fighting. 
The fact is, the vast majority of armored warfare from its first battle to most recently, all happens within an average distance of 1.5km. The average armored engagement in the Gulf War was roughly 1.5km, despite the misconception that much of the tank fighting happened at 4km+. This simply isn't the case. Combat Mission can currently simulate a map that is 4km x 4km. That is more that double the average armored engagement range. Can battles in CM get a little close for space? Of course, especially when you are dealing with modern vehicle heavy formations and you have more than a BN on either side. CM can still do it though, and I have had more than a few battles in modern CM titles at this scale where everything behaved realistically. It's also worth mentioning that CM is not designed to simulate warfare past the BN level. You can do it of course, but you are going beyond what the simulation has been designed to do. You can do the same in Steel Beasts by simulating a division level action. Can you do it? Yes. Is that what the sim was designed for? No. (For the record, I have never tried to simulate a division level action in Steel Beasts, and I'm not even sure it would run on a modern computer)
There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver. There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver that apply exclusively to a specific level of warfare. There are numerous definitions for the specific levels of warfare, and most military forces in the world have different definitions for the same terms based on their own perspective and doctrines of warfare. None of these definitions have agreed upon hard stopping points. Where does the tactical level of combat end and the operational level begin? Someone from the US and Russian military would give you a different answer. Further, someone from the Soviet and Russian military would give you yet another different answer. All of this is irrelevant sauce that DoD analysts and S-2's alike love to get lost in, rarely yielding any results. 
The fact is this: at the level of warfare that CM simulates, there is maneuver. On a 4km x 4km map(or any sized map for that matter), any sized combat element on the battlefield can maneuver to a completely new location on the map. That for all intents and purposes is maneuver at the scale of warfare present in CM. 
Finally, if what CM provides is simply not enough for you, then just don't play it. I personally think CM is the finest tactical combined arms simulator out there, with no other sims/competition coming even slightly close. This does not mean I am not critical. I am no fanboy. There are more than a few posts and threads by me here on the forum to prove this. I wish that everyone who was interested in warfare at this level could appreciate CM for what it is. I wish that everyone who is in the profession of arms could appreciate CM as a valuable conceptual tool of understanding tactical warfare. This isn't the case, and never will be. If CM was perfect in every possible, there would still be people out there who would dislike it. Human nature I suppose. The point is, I hope you can learn to understand what CM offers and appreciate it for what it is. If you can't then that's too bad, but that is due to your own subjectivity, and not a fault of CM.
With that, another Miller essay is in the books, here for everyone to ignore! 😄

This is a really good summary, and has always been my understanding of what Combat Mission is trying to simulate. CM does not simulate the road march, or even the assembly area. CM starts at the line of departure. 
Yes, its true that some battles "spill over" from their initial battlespace and develop into larger battles. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu went from an operation centered around a building with 4 secured corners (essentially a city block) to a sizable chunk of the city itself. CM can simulate this. Instead of having the entire Battle of Mogadishu in one massive map, it is simply broken up into the phases of the battle. The first battle would be centered around the target building. The second would be centered around the Rangers moving from the target building to the first crash site. The third battle would center around securing the first crash site, so on and so forth. Would it be more fun if you could just do everything on one massive map with unlimited time? Arguably. The fact remains, that whether or not this would be fun, it is beyond the scope of Combat Mission. 
Steel Beasts is a fantastic tank sim, and one that I personally enjoy very much. However it is very important to keep in mind what the purpose of that sim is. Most casual players of the sim only fight battles, however this is far from the actual purpose of the sim. Steel Beasts is designed to teach tankers and tank formations how to conduct all possible operations, which includes road marches, how to drive in formation, etc. In fact, the combat in Steel Beasts is secondary to the 'learn to maneuver' element. Steel Beasts has large maps because it wants to simulate both moving to the assembly area, then the attack position, then the line of departure, as well as simulating the actual combat that occurs. Combat Mission is NOT designed to teach the player how to road march a battalion, or how to establish a forward command post, etc. Combat Mission is only designed to simulate the actual fighting. 
The fact is, the vast majority of armored warfare from its first battle to most recently, all happens within an average distance of 1.5km. The average armored engagement in the Gulf War was roughly 1.5km, despite the misconception that much of the tank fighting happened at 4km+. This simply isn't the case. Combat Mission can currently simulate a map that is 4km x 4km. That is more that double the average armored engagement range. Can battles in CM get a little close for space? Of course, especially when you are dealing with modern vehicle heavy formations and you have more than a BN on either side. CM can still do it though, and I have had more than a few battles in modern CM titles at this scale where everything behaved realistically. It's also worth mentioning that CM is not designed to simulate warfare past the BN level. You can do it of course, but you are going beyond what the simulation has been designed to do. You can do the same in Steel Beasts by simulating a division level action. Can you do it? Yes. Is that what the sim was designed for? No. (For the record, I have never tried to simulate a division level action in Steel Beasts, and I'm not even sure it would run on a modern computer)
There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver. There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver that apply exclusively to a specific level of warfare. There are numerous definitions for the specific levels of warfare, and most military forces in the world have different definitions for the same terms based on their own perspective and doctrines of warfare. None of these definitions have agreed upon hard stopping points. Where does the tactical level of combat end and the operational level begin? Someone from the US and Russian military would give you a different answer. Further, someone from the Soviet and Russian military would give you yet another different answer. All of this is irrelevant sauce that DoD analysts and S-2's alike love to get lost in, rarely yielding any results. 
The fact is this: at the level of warfare that CM simulates, there is maneuver. On a 4km x 4km map(or any sized map for that matter), any sized combat element on the battlefield can maneuver to a completely new location on the map. That for all intents and purposes is maneuver at the scale of warfare present in CM. 
Finally, if what CM provides is simply not enough for you, then just don't play it. I personally think CM is the finest tactical combined arms simulator out there, with no other sims/competition coming even slightly close. This does not mean I am not critical. I am no fanboy. There are more than a few posts and threads by me here on the forum to prove this. I wish that everyone who was interested in warfare at this level could appreciate CM for what it is. I wish that everyone who is in the profession of arms could appreciate CM as a valuable conceptual tool of understanding tactical warfare. This isn't the case, and never will be. If CM was perfect in every possible, there would still be people out there who would dislike it. Human nature I suppose. The point is, I hope you can learn to understand what CM offers and appreciate it for what it is. If you can't then that's too bad, but that is due to your own subjectivity, and not a fault of CM.
With that, another Miller essay is in the books, here for everyone to ignore! 😄

In order to learn how to multiply numbers, you need to know how to add numbers first. If you do not understand the advantages of recon vehicles over recon infantry, and the specific things each are good and bad at, then you will not understand their role as a whole as part of a larger operation. Which clearly you don't. I feel that trying to explain to you why having recon vehicles that move much faster than infantry teams, and generally carry as good as or much better optics and recon equipment than the infantry recon teams, is a waste of my time. 
The fact remains. Recon vehicles have a very important role in Combat Mission, at the level Combat Mission simulates. If you do not understand why, then that is a fault with your understanding, not with Combat Mission. 
Oh for crying out loud. How many years ago did the record break? We are desperate for a new tune. 
If you do not think there are scenario's in Combat Mission that are large enough, I have an amazingly simple solution for you. Make. Them. Yourself. 

This is a really good summary, and has always been my understanding of what Combat Mission is trying to simulate. CM does not simulate the road march, or even the assembly area. CM starts at the line of departure. 
Yes, its true that some battles "spill over" from their initial battlespace and develop into larger battles. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu went from an operation centered around a building with 4 secured corners (essentially a city block) to a sizable chunk of the city itself. CM can simulate this. Instead of having the entire Battle of Mogadishu in one massive map, it is simply broken up into the phases of the battle. The first battle would be centered around the target building. The second would be centered around the Rangers moving from the target building to the first crash site. The third battle would center around securing the first crash site, so on and so forth. Would it be more fun if you could just do everything on one massive map with unlimited time? Arguably. The fact remains, that whether or not this would be fun, it is beyond the scope of Combat Mission. 
Steel Beasts is a fantastic tank sim, and one that I personally enjoy very much. However it is very important to keep in mind what the purpose of that sim is. Most casual players of the sim only fight battles, however this is far from the actual purpose of the sim. Steel Beasts is designed to teach tankers and tank formations how to conduct all possible operations, which includes road marches, how to drive in formation, etc. In fact, the combat in Steel Beasts is secondary to the 'learn to maneuver' element. Steel Beasts has large maps because it wants to simulate both moving to the assembly area, then the attack position, then the line of departure, as well as simulating the actual combat that occurs. Combat Mission is NOT designed to teach the player how to road march a battalion, or how to establish a forward command post, etc. Combat Mission is only designed to simulate the actual fighting. 
The fact is, the vast majority of armored warfare from its first battle to most recently, all happens within an average distance of 1.5km. The average armored engagement in the Gulf War was roughly 1.5km, despite the misconception that much of the tank fighting happened at 4km+. This simply isn't the case. Combat Mission can currently simulate a map that is 4km x 4km. That is more that double the average armored engagement range. Can battles in CM get a little close for space? Of course, especially when you are dealing with modern vehicle heavy formations and you have more than a BN on either side. CM can still do it though, and I have had more than a few battles in modern CM titles at this scale where everything behaved realistically. It's also worth mentioning that CM is not designed to simulate warfare past the BN level. You can do it of course, but you are going beyond what the simulation has been designed to do. You can do the same in Steel Beasts by simulating a division level action. Can you do it? Yes. Is that what the sim was designed for? No. (For the record, I have never tried to simulate a division level action in Steel Beasts, and I'm not even sure it would run on a modern computer)
There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver. There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver that apply exclusively to a specific level of warfare. There are numerous definitions for the specific levels of warfare, and most military forces in the world have different definitions for the same terms based on their own perspective and doctrines of warfare. None of these definitions have agreed upon hard stopping points. Where does the tactical level of combat end and the operational level begin? Someone from the US and Russian military would give you a different answer. Further, someone from the Soviet and Russian military would give you yet another different answer. All of this is irrelevant sauce that DoD analysts and S-2's alike love to get lost in, rarely yielding any results. 
The fact is this: at the level of warfare that CM simulates, there is maneuver. On a 4km x 4km map(or any sized map for that matter), any sized combat element on the battlefield can maneuver to a completely new location on the map. That for all intents and purposes is maneuver at the scale of warfare present in CM. 
Finally, if what CM provides is simply not enough for you, then just don't play it. I personally think CM is the finest tactical combined arms simulator out there, with no other sims/competition coming even slightly close. This does not mean I am not critical. I am no fanboy. There are more than a few posts and threads by me here on the forum to prove this. I wish that everyone who was interested in warfare at this level could appreciate CM for what it is. I wish that everyone who is in the profession of arms could appreciate CM as a valuable conceptual tool of understanding tactical warfare. This isn't the case, and never will be. If CM was perfect in every possible, there would still be people out there who would dislike it. Human nature I suppose. The point is, I hope you can learn to understand what CM offers and appreciate it for what it is. If you can't then that's too bad, but that is due to your own subjectivity, and not a fault of CM.
With that, another Miller essay is in the books, here for everyone to ignore! 😄

Recon is an exercise that occurs at all levels of warfare. The horse is quite dead at this point, Erwin.

I'm well aware of what you meant. It appears the concept remains no more clearer to you, however. To put it simply: if recon occurs at all levels and you cannot see how a vehicle (to take the example of the BRM-1) with a literal radar attached to it, or a swift vehicle that balances protection and mobility may not facilitate this, then I, nor any manual may help you understand how to conduct recon at the tactical level. 

Yeah, and how often will they have the opportunity to fire at such a long distances? On the European theatre, the average engagement distance for tanks or ATGMs is about 1km.

There is a great misconception that has gone on far too long here on the forums and in general. Recon IS NOT a single phase of battle. Recon does NOT stop, ever. Recon is constant. This applies equally to WWII and modern warfare. 

This is a really good summary, and has always been my understanding of what Combat Mission is trying to simulate. CM does not simulate the road march, or even the assembly area. CM starts at the line of departure. 
Yes, its true that some battles "spill over" from their initial battlespace and develop into larger battles. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu went from an operation centered around a building with 4 secured corners (essentially a city block) to a sizable chunk of the city itself. CM can simulate this. Instead of having the entire Battle of Mogadishu in one massive map, it is simply broken up into the phases of the battle. The first battle would be centered around the target building. The second would be centered around the Rangers moving from the target building to the first crash site. The third battle would center around securing the first crash site, so on and so forth. Would it be more fun if you could just do everything on one massive map with unlimited time? Arguably. The fact remains, that whether or not this would be fun, it is beyond the scope of Combat Mission. 
Steel Beasts is a fantastic tank sim, and one that I personally enjoy very much. However it is very important to keep in mind what the purpose of that sim is. Most casual players of the sim only fight battles, however this is far from the actual purpose of the sim. Steel Beasts is designed to teach tankers and tank formations how to conduct all possible operations, which includes road marches, how to drive in formation, etc. In fact, the combat in Steel Beasts is secondary to the 'learn to maneuver' element. Steel Beasts has large maps because it wants to simulate both moving to the assembly area, then the attack position, then the line of departure, as well as simulating the actual combat that occurs. Combat Mission is NOT designed to teach the player how to road march a battalion, or how to establish a forward command post, etc. Combat Mission is only designed to simulate the actual fighting. 
The fact is, the vast majority of armored warfare from its first battle to most recently, all happens within an average distance of 1.5km. The average armored engagement in the Gulf War was roughly 1.5km, despite the misconception that much of the tank fighting happened at 4km+. This simply isn't the case. Combat Mission can currently simulate a map that is 4km x 4km. That is more that double the average armored engagement range. Can battles in CM get a little close for space? Of course, especially when you are dealing with modern vehicle heavy formations and you have more than a BN on either side. CM can still do it though, and I have had more than a few battles in modern CM titles at this scale where everything behaved realistically. It's also worth mentioning that CM is not designed to simulate warfare past the BN level. You can do it of course, but you are going beyond what the simulation has been designed to do. You can do the same in Steel Beasts by simulating a division level action. Can you do it? Yes. Is that what the sim was designed for? No. (For the record, I have never tried to simulate a division level action in Steel Beasts, and I'm not even sure it would run on a modern computer)
There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver. There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver that apply exclusively to a specific level of warfare. There are numerous definitions for the specific levels of warfare, and most military forces in the world have different definitions for the same terms based on their own perspective and doctrines of warfare. None of these definitions have agreed upon hard stopping points. Where does the tactical level of combat end and the operational level begin? Someone from the US and Russian military would give you a different answer. Further, someone from the Soviet and Russian military would give you yet another different answer. All of this is irrelevant sauce that DoD analysts and S-2's alike love to get lost in, rarely yielding any results. 
The fact is this: at the level of warfare that CM simulates, there is maneuver. On a 4km x 4km map(or any sized map for that matter), any sized combat element on the battlefield can maneuver to a completely new location on the map. That for all intents and purposes is maneuver at the scale of warfare present in CM. 
Finally, if what CM provides is simply not enough for you, then just don't play it. I personally think CM is the finest tactical combined arms simulator out there, with no other sims/competition coming even slightly close. This does not mean I am not critical. I am no fanboy. There are more than a few posts and threads by me here on the forum to prove this. I wish that everyone who was interested in warfare at this level could appreciate CM for what it is. I wish that everyone who is in the profession of arms could appreciate CM as a valuable conceptual tool of understanding tactical warfare. This isn't the case, and never will be. If CM was perfect in every possible, there would still be people out there who would dislike it. Human nature I suppose. The point is, I hope you can learn to understand what CM offers and appreciate it for what it is. If you can't then that's too bad, but that is due to your own subjectivity, and not a fault of CM.
With that, another Miller essay is in the books, here for everyone to ignore! 😄

This is a really good summary, and has always been my understanding of what Combat Mission is trying to simulate. CM does not simulate the road march, or even the assembly area. CM starts at the line of departure. 
Yes, its true that some battles "spill over" from their initial battlespace and develop into larger battles. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu went from an operation centered around a building with 4 secured corners (essentially a city block) to a sizable chunk of the city itself. CM can simulate this. Instead of having the entire Battle of Mogadishu in one massive map, it is simply broken up into the phases of the battle. The first battle would be centered around the target building. The second would be centered around the Rangers moving from the target building to the first crash site. The third battle would center around securing the first crash site, so on and so forth. Would it be more fun if you could just do everything on one massive map with unlimited time? Arguably. The fact remains, that whether or not this would be fun, it is beyond the scope of Combat Mission. 
Steel Beasts is a fantastic tank sim, and one that I personally enjoy very much. However it is very important to keep in mind what the purpose of that sim is. Most casual players of the sim only fight battles, however this is far from the actual purpose of the sim. Steel Beasts is designed to teach tankers and tank formations how to conduct all possible operations, which includes road marches, how to drive in formation, etc. In fact, the combat in Steel Beasts is secondary to the 'learn to maneuver' element. Steel Beasts has large maps because it wants to simulate both moving to the assembly area, then the attack position, then the line of departure, as well as simulating the actual combat that occurs. Combat Mission is NOT designed to teach the player how to road march a battalion, or how to establish a forward command post, etc. Combat Mission is only designed to simulate the actual fighting. 
The fact is, the vast majority of armored warfare from its first battle to most recently, all happens within an average distance of 1.5km. The average armored engagement in the Gulf War was roughly 1.5km, despite the misconception that much of the tank fighting happened at 4km+. This simply isn't the case. Combat Mission can currently simulate a map that is 4km x 4km. That is more that double the average armored engagement range. Can battles in CM get a little close for space? Of course, especially when you are dealing with modern vehicle heavy formations and you have more than a BN on either side. CM can still do it though, and I have had more than a few battles in modern CM titles at this scale where everything behaved realistically. It's also worth mentioning that CM is not designed to simulate warfare past the BN level. You can do it of course, but you are going beyond what the simulation has been designed to do. You can do the same in Steel Beasts by simulating a division level action. Can you do it? Yes. Is that what the sim was designed for? No. (For the record, I have never tried to simulate a division level action in Steel Beasts, and I'm not even sure it would run on a modern computer)
There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver. There are numerous definitions for the term maneuver that apply exclusively to a specific level of warfare. There are numerous definitions for the specific levels of warfare, and most military forces in the world have different definitions for the same terms based on their own perspective and doctrines of warfare. None of these definitions have agreed upon hard stopping points. Where does the tactical level of combat end and the operational level begin? Someone from the US and Russian military would give you a different answer. Further, someone from the Soviet and Russian military would give you yet another different answer. All of this is irrelevant sauce that DoD analysts and S-2's alike love to get lost in, rarely yielding any results. 
The fact is this: at the level of warfare that CM simulates, there is maneuver. On a 4km x 4km map(or any sized map for that matter), any sized combat element on the battlefield can maneuver to a completely new location on the map. That for all intents and purposes is maneuver at the scale of warfare present in CM. 
Finally, if what CM provides is simply not enough for you, then just don't play it. I personally think CM is the finest tactical combined arms simulator out there, with no other sims/competition coming even slightly close. This does not mean I am not critical. I am no fanboy. There are more than a few posts and threads by me here on the forum to prove this. I wish that everyone who was interested in warfare at this level could appreciate CM for what it is. I wish that everyone who is in the profession of arms could appreciate CM as a valuable conceptual tool of understanding tactical warfare. This isn't the case, and never will be. If CM was perfect in every possible, there would still be people out there who would dislike it. Human nature I suppose. The point is, I hope you can learn to understand what CM offers and appreciate it for what it is. If you can't then that's too bad, but that is due to your own subjectivity, and not a fault of CM.
With that, another Miller essay is in the books, here for everyone to ignore! 😄

A new AAR from Bil, we know what that means!
Looking forward to seeing how this plays out, and the screenshots are a nice bonus too!

in this thread: Geriatrics chomp on obvious bait.

Sure. Good luck with that survey.  Hope it knocks one out of the park. Ignore the doubters, full steam ahead (pun intended)

The numbers represent a trend of interest in tactical wargames. Which happens to be minimal. A good counter-point would be that players playing the game doesn't equal to players buying the game. Steam is full of archivists. Also here's the stats for the Close Combat games:
Gateway to Caen: 17.6 (players per day, average of 30 days)
Panthers in the Fog: 8.9 (players per day, average of 30 days)
Men of War: Assault Squad 2: 1311.3
A little bit higher than the others in our tactical wargames genre -- still, considerably small compared to more "arcade-y" titles. Not a perfect stat analysis -- I do welcome better ones.
I like Steam, especially the sales. I am just saying that if I was BFC, I'd probably focus on my core audience or make a game geared towards Steam, and its systems. Something like MoW:AS 2 or Steel Division/Wargame is designed for Steam users, and is therefore, moderately successful on Steam. Also, I didn't see the strawpoll and didn't vote.

If you can’t understand why a steam supporter would be more likely to vote you need to take a few UX classes. And how sure are you? Based on?  I deal with a lot of UX folks and have been exposed to the whole psychology of surveys, how you ask questions, what can be leading questions etc.  I know you’d like this to be cut and dried especially as the small sample size is already in favor of what you want.  Unfortunately if you really want an honest appraisal versus vindication of your own opinion, you’ll need to work a bit harder at it.  Just saying. 
As to the stats,yes they are pretty clear. Again they don’t support your theory so you are well prepared to discard them.  You are clearly operating from bias.  Not that your response is totally invalid, but in both cases you immediately defend the position you want to be right versus agreeing that that particular piece of data doesn’t support your argument. 

As someone who has worked in IT, let me tell you that there is no bottom limit on computer literacy. I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe.
On Steam:
I think BFC has good reason to keep off Steam. Besides the issue of licensing and Valve's cut, the main issue is the Steam user base. How many customers would Steam bring? I think significantly less than one thinks. Let's take a look at some stats from Steam Charts ( http://steamcharts.com )
Theatre of War 2: Kursk -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.3
Theatre of War -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.2
Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 15.9
Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 6.5
Steel Division: Normandy 44 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 395.5
Wargame: Red Dragon -- 699.7
Arma 3: 16,329.6
Tactics games aren't really popular, even when compared to related genres. I seriously doubt the move to Steam would offer a significant increase in users. This being said, I'd love to see the older CM games on GOG! I think GOG is a much more friendly platform to old-ish tactics games.

@BrotherSurplice made me aware of this interview Steve gave to Rock Paper Shotgun a few days ago. Gave it a read and enjoyed it. Always fun to see what Steve says to other people instead of us forum-goers. There is also a bit of a tease about CMSF2 pre-orders coming "very soon" in the interview.
Note: Scroll down past the ship games for the interview
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/06/08/the-flare-path-this-and-that/

@BrotherSurplice made me aware of this interview Steve gave to Rock Paper Shotgun a few days ago. Gave it a read and enjoyed it. Always fun to see what Steve says to other people instead of us forum-goers. There is also a bit of a tease about CMSF2 pre-orders coming "very soon" in the interview.
Note: Scroll down past the ship games for the interview
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/06/08/the-flare-path-this-and-that/

Well, it's damn near unanimous! If given the choice between Afrika Korps and Early War Europe,  Fulda Gap would win!
 
Mord.

LMAO! You guys are so predictable. We made it to one answer before it devolved into off topic wars.
 
Mord: What's your favorite color?
Poster 1: Green
Poster 2: Fulda Gap!
 
Mord: What's your favorite food?
Poster 1: Pizza
Poster 2: Fulda Gap!
 
Mord: Who's your favorite porn star?
Poster 1: Fulda Gap!
Poster 2: Michael Emrys!
Mord: Steve, Emrys' made a sock puppet...
 
Mord.
 
P.S. Come to think of it, Fulda Gap does sound like a German porn actress.

1985-1989. It would be easy to do, despite the seemingly large amount of time covered. The date range would allow for a few different TO&E's. For example, in 1985 the US was using mostly a mix of M1 Abrams and M60 Patton tanks, along with mostly M113's with a varying amount of M2 and M3 Bradleys. In 1989, you would have mostly M1A1's and M2/M3 Bradley's. For the Soviets, in 1985 you would have a lot of T-72 variants (B's mostly) and T-64's, and in 1989 you would get mostly T-80 variants (BV's and U's in the shock armies). Of course there would be similar differences between other NATO and Warsaw Pact nations. This is generalized of course (for example, there would be a decent amount of M1IP Abrams mixed into units in both 1985 and 1989) but it gives you an idea of why I would choose this date range. 
To be clear, I wouldn't argue for a war that would last 4 years from 1985 to 1989, but a range of scenario's happening in that timeframe. That would allow for a lot of flexibility and access to lots of fun toys from each side. 

I led a 107mm self-propelled mortar platoon for 13 months.  Gunners cannot accurately fire at targets they cannot see.  More importantly, they cannot adjust fires so as to hit targets they cannot see.  Your "justification" is flawed in that is not realistic.  The game currently (and accurately) lets mortars and grenadiers lay "area" fires anywhere they have lines of sight.  That's about as realistic as it should get in any game.   

Count me in on that as well! A CM: Fulda Gap is my dream CM game. I'm ok knowing that it is basically impossible within the next 5 years or more, but I'm hoping eventually they get around to it. 
Back on topic, I'm glad to hear that the scenarios are getting a dressing up with all the new engine improvements in mind. Can't begin to imagine how tedious that must be, so hats off to everyone slogging through that.

Heh been lobbying them to bend to.a Fulda gap timeline.  So far the answer is still no. I am looking at retirement soon though and at that point I can seriously invest some time to wear Steve down. 
seriously though CMSF is in a nice sweet spot time wise .  M1s are not uber powerful and it has great modding possibilities.  My one wish is probably to have the ability to do a more temperate climate region and snow.  Maybe we’ll see another European mod pack for CMSF2.

A frustrating but completely understandable situation. Very much appreciate the explanation as well as the plan for going forward. I think having more incremental patches instead of single large ones is a good direction to go in. 
Thanks for the update! Sounds like summer is going to be quite the season of releases. Very much looking forward to it all!
Can you elaborate at all on what the patch will be fixing/tweaking?