Kinophile

Interesting retrospective on the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by WOTR. 
https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/russian-performance-in-the-russo-georgian-war-revisited/
Posting here and in Black Sea forum because it's a dual-use article. For SF2 it gives a greatsense of comparable RUS forces (I know they're not in the game), even just as background context. 
For BS it helps show just how far modern, 2018 RUS forces have come. 
It refs the CAST study, tge Tanks of August, so it's decent for civilian analysis (I guess?). 

+1

Man something tells me I’d rather sit off to the side away from that afv.  Like painting a big bullseye on yourself and then hoping you can kill the bull before it gores you. 

one section that probably should be added is scale changes relative to CMx1 - 8m tiles versus 20m, but then there probably needs to be a whole wiki on CMx2 engine and tactics.  

I've updated the general Combat Mission page to include a section on SF2 (scroll to the bottom). 
Feel free to correct if necessary. I'm editing on mobile so typos are wont to creep in. 
I'll create a separate SF2 main article page next. That will have the released screenshots etc. 
 

It is neither, it is simply reality. The view that somehow they are supposed to find and or fix every perceived issue is simply unrealistic and follows the vein of entitlement that we hear so often. I may be a little more sensitive to it working in an arena with a user base of 20 something’s who think because their mom sliced the crust off their sandwiches that the whole world is gonna cater to their every whim. Still let’s say you think in a particular circumstance the TAC AI behaves counter to what you think it should, where do you think that should fall in BFs priority list and how closely should they follow every conversation on possible issues that pop up on the forum? 

This covers off on why there are lots of young men and women in graveyards (including two people I knew very well) or living their lives without the limbs they were born with.
IEDs are a nightmare and defeating them requires a lot of effort. FWIW I have never been taught to put rounds down to defeat IEDs in any of my predeployment training for either Iraq (1 tour) or Afghanistan (3 tours) between 2006 and 2016 or seen the method employed on my time outside the wire. The drills taught to cross a culvert (or any suspect IED location) involved a lot of very methodical observation, movement and steps to mitigate the effects of the device if it detonated by minimising the number of people likely to get whacked by the detonation. That was all complimented by technical means such as ECM and detection devices such as the Vallon
http://www.vallon.de/products.lasso?a=uxo-detection&b=8
Of that suite of measures, the only thing that is lacking in game is the Vallon. Well not quite obviously but in terms of mechanics for IED detection because they can't be detected, then in game terms it is lacking. However, in real life Vallon and similar devices do not find every single device so ultimately IEDs have to be defeated by combinations of means and the sad fact of life is that, despite all of the above, where IEDs are present, they will cause casualties.
Moving through an area with culverts/chokepoints (such as your bridge example) or one identified as a High Activity Zone for IED placement is slow and stressful and does not involve whanging 40mm from a MK19/GMG or similar around the place. Why? Because in reality your ROE rarely allows you to put the rounds downrange on suspected positions/IEDs that the game allows you to and of course  your briefing stated that they were likely to be present which is a luxury not always available in real life. As a result of all of this, you are faced with, in game terms, boring methodical application of time-consuming drills. In real life, stressful and exhausting application of time-consuming drills.
Is it physically possible to get an IED to detonate by firing at it with 40mm MK19/GMG or similar? I'm not an expert but I suspect that yes it is; however,this method, like all others, is never a 100% guarantee and I would guess that the percentage of successfully defeating a device by firing a direct fire weapon in the vicinity of said device would be pretty low.
I can't help you with your requests regarding that particular mission but ultimately I think it is worth remembering that:
This is a game.
You can't control everything that happens on the battlefield.
You are going to take casualties.

Sorry @IanL and @Heirloom_Tomato I have other projects right now keeping me busy so don’t have time for a game, Public or otherwise.  Ian, contact me in a month or two, the scabs from our last fight should have fallen off by then.  

HerrTom:  B4 you go about changing thing, try and get other testers to play your scenario.  Until others come up with the same imbalance conclusion you can't be certain that your tactics were optimal.  

As a static object must be required.

A partial compensation is that individual shooters can and will target enemies even if the LOS tool fails to allow issuance of a formal Target or AF order. In fact some players have commented here that it's often better to let units select their own targets than to micro them.

It would be nice if the purple line that comes up when you select "Pop Smoke" extended out the distance the smoke would go. As it stands it extends (and says) 20m, which I guess is accurate for defensive smoke launchers but not for these. It could go out the full 150+m to show what'll really happen.

We haz met the New Belligerents and they iz us. 
Let's move on.

A follow-on would be fascinating - similar map,, stronger forces and Bil would have the natural foreknowledge of recon. Keep IanL's forces, as they are now and augment with reinforcing units steadily fed in, with increasing FS support on both sides. 
Pass the popcorn pls... 

I think calling a cease-fire and withdrawing is exactly the right move here. Enemy positions and strength were established enough to inform a larger, better equipped force to come in and conduct a proper attack. The losses suffered were unfortunate, but pretty unavoidable. On the whole it appears you were able to keep the majority of your force alive.
Speaking of a better equipped force conducting an attack, is there any interest for a follow-up AAR? Could be interesting to see a properly equipped OpFor attack. Maybe even juice the OpFor a bit by giving them good training and morale in the editor to make things more interesting. At the very least it would let all of us see more toys in SF2, and it would likely be very explosive!

Frustration is understandable and we've all been there.  But, when one is up against the superior player, or the odds, it's better to continue.  Not nice to bail just cos one thinks one is losing.  Very often by fighting on one can pull the chestnuts out of the fire and get a win - esp if your oppo has a dose of hubris and gets overconfident.  Also, you may underestimate your opp's pain.  Have personally experienced those sorts of reversals and now have the philosophy in games as in life that one "never, ever gives up".

What a fascinating battle, and I totally agree - pushing forward would just decimate you, and at least now you know where he is (in the grand scheme of things). 
I'm playing a custom CMBS scenario, as UKR, against @sburke and I feel my biggest failure so far is my artillery work. The FS is deliberately a little random in timing, size  and quality so it's hard to properly plan, but still.
I loved this AAR, and the previous one, for its exemplary lessons in use of terrain. SF2 arty work, I assume, is similar to CMBS. 
I'd deeply appreciate one that helps show how to use artillery in offense/defense. Eg a concentrated, heavily supported attack into a prepared urban/rough defense. 
Doesn't have to be big, just with some decent FS to play with on both sides. 

I began in war gaming with Avalon Hill's Squad Leader, progressed to Advanced Squad Leader, and finally online with CMBB. I must admit that I have a major character flaw. I don't pay any attention to the warts in the game or what I think it should be able to do, but can't. I accept the game as is, because for all it's bugs, problems, and limitations, IMHO, it's the best game set in the industry. The only thing that really gets my hackles up and causes me to bare my teeth is when someone complains that the BF support service is bad. I've had a number of issues that support helped me resolve, and if they couldn't help me, the next e-mail was from Steve, who once worked late into Christmas Eve to help me resolve a licensing issue, and finished by thanking me for my support of BF.
I respect and appreciate the help and guidance of the many grognards in the Forums (even if I don't always agree with their answers), who for the most part have the patience of Saints. If you've ever answered the telephone and had someone immediately launch into a tirade because they were transferred from one number to another until they get back to where they started, and then was then disconnected, you know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, the Forums are anonymous and too many feel that they can be insulting jerks because they are hidden. If you are one who doesn't treat others with courtesy and respect just because you don't agree with them, then YOU are the problem! (Occasional lapses due to illness, bad days, extreme frustration excepted.)
Bottom line of this rant is my advice to realize that NOTHING IS EVER PERFECT, and to just enjoy playing the most amazing game set out there.

I dint want to derail Bil’s thread but if I follow the commentary above it would seem to me a requirement is substantially numerically superior forces, at least in an isolated locale. That may be tricky here.

Inability to select main weapons has same issue with the Ukrainian BTR4.  It has 30mm plus AGL and in the many times I have played with a BTR4, it always exhausts its 30mm HE (at 10 rounds/sec it takes only about 40-50 seconds) regardless of the suitability of the target before it uses the AGL.  
Maybe not economical/practical to address for CM2, but hope this is on the list for CM3.
Incidentally. a major problem with fast firing weapons like the BTR4's 30mm is that it only requires maybe 5 seconds of fire to be effective.  If one uses the 15 second fire command it uses way too much ammo (approx 25% of its entire HE load-out).  Currently, one has to revert to the old work around of having waypoints with a 5 second pause and TARGET command followed by a fast move to another waypoint a few meters way with a covered arc or facing command to stop the firing.
How practical would it be to reduce the firing time span command to 5 second increments?  For modern weapons that is often all one needs.  

It would be nice if, in addition to Target, Target Light and Target Timed there was a way to select which weapon to fire. The BMP-2M comes to mind which has an Autocannon, LMG, ATGM and AGL. 
The first thing that comes to mind is having something similar to when you place a move order on a building and you get the little pop up that asks which floor. Simply have that come up when you place a target marker and have a list of available weapons, with the default set for all, which is I think the current behavior.
 
 

Hello together! Again a post from my side to help improving the best game in the world!
I'm posting it here in CMSF2 before it's release so that this needs no fix afterwards - but this little translation error has appeared in ALL
CM titles since the introduction of game engine 4.0  .
 
In the GERMAN version of game engine 4.0 the command / (or description for the action) "Embark" is translated with "Einschiffen" and this is unfortunately not correct.
The correct / proper military term for getting on a vehicle is "Aufsitzen" - which originally means "to get on horseback" (English: "Mount").
And like the English command "Mount" it also comes from the cavalry times. 🐴
 
English - German
Mount - Aufsitzen
Dismount - Absitzen
Civilian expression would be
Get on - Einsteigen
Get off - Aussteigen
 
The German word "Einschiffen" means to  really / literally / de facto  going on board of a real ship. - And, in a second, colloquial and somewhat wider meaning, it can also be said for peeing into one's own pants / bed. 😏  😄
 
OK, I hope that my explanations were helpful.  Thanks for your attention.
 

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

BF has a team of two.  If you see an item you "think" is an issue who's job is it to try and see if it is reproducible? It isn't mine I know that much.  I might be willing to help, but it ain't my job.  If you think Steve or Charles are gonna drop everything for a perceived issue.. well you are entitled to dream.  That leaves...….