Bubba883XL

It should be in, I agree. But I don't expect the module before the autumn of this year. Don't have a clue though, so don't take that seriously.Really hope I'm proven wrong. 🙂

Mixing CM with historical photos
 

 

Cheers.

Here´s one more:

MG team in action

infantry and armored in cooperation

CMSF 2 has amphibious vehicles.


 
And un-conventional units


 

 
To include spies

 
VBIEDs

 
Pick-up trucks and taxis that can actually be used (not just flavor objects).

 
IEDs - Small, medium, large, huge.  Controlled by radio, cell or wire.  That can be used to bring down bridges in some designer made scenarios. 

 
With lots of cool mods and scenarios

 
@37mm is currently working on a Southeast Asia mod / campaign:  http://community.battlefront.com/topic/135081-heaven-earth-project-discussion-thread/

 

 
Or maybe you would like to command the raid that killed Osama, Created by @Combatintman. 
 
Just off the top of my head ............... 

It’s really difficult for anyone to answer “is it worth it?” That is totally dependent on the individual. What I can tell you is that CMBS is cheaper because it has less content. It has 3 nations, whereas CMSF2, if you buy all the addon content, has British, US Army, US Marines, Canadian, Dutch, German, Syrian forces. The Syrians can be used to represent a number of possible countries that use Warsaw Pact/Russian equipment. So at this time CMSF2 offers a lot more toys to play with than CMBS. It also represents about a decade earlier in technological development, so the T90 or Abrams are not the same as what you see in CMBS, nor are other vehicles and hardware/weapons. So it’s not merely CMBS with a few added countries. Even the stuff they share is different. 
Hope that helps.

I'm currently using em in a scenario but struggling to get em to do their flaming job without becoming flaming wrecks. Need to revisit my tactics...

Is this the new module?

I really hope we can get the field cap in this module! 

CMA is quite underrated. A very interesting game. It would be great to see it updated.

@Mord  You've said something that I've been thinking for quite some time.....Will definitely contribute if there's a possibility.

I'd buy an updated CMA as well.  The game is a wonderful complete change of pace and era.  Given the enthusiasm for CMSF2, there seems to be a market for reduxes.

I notices a while ago that some pz-IVs are skirtless when looked at from close distance but, as the viewer is getting away, boom! the skirt suddenly appears on the tank. Now, this is kinda annoying and I would like to correct it, but I don't know how. Any ideas? Thanks.

I am about the reflection of Warsaw uprising in the game. The game is just a modelling of combat scenarios and there are no "civilain units" in the game to be butchered. Germans also massacred civilians in USSR, so according to this logic, CMBB/Red Thunder should be banned on the stage of idea... 

+1.  Interesting photos.  

119 B&W and color(ized?) photos of Warsaw Uprising: https://www.facebook.com/piotr.perykasza/media_set?set=a.1138042689738010&type=3
Some examples is below.
The question about "No playing the German side butchering civilians" is disqussional. Any civilian, who takes a weapon in the hands and put some sort of insignias consider itself like combatant. Also Polish side except own formations in Soviet army also had own partisan wovement - Armia Krajowa (supports legal government in exile) and Armia Ludowa (support pro-communist political forces of Poland).
 

THIS IS JUST SUPERB, looks like great fun, also inspiring that one can make such huge maps. 

I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.

Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.

CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).

Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.

For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.

PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf Bull's CM QB RATIOS.xlsx

+1.  Interesting stuff.  Thanks for taking the time to create and share this. 

I know about 203 mm and higher сalibers as off-map, but this is not the same that you have a gun on the street. Also, as you read above, indirect fire suport in conditions of urban combat was very difficult or even impossible  and caused severe friendly fire effect.  
How it is possible to make the module about Visla-Oder and Berlin operations without "siege warfare"? This was major component and culmination of these operations! Red Army, moving to Berlin, was forced to nibble heavy Germans defense. 60 km of distance between Oder river and Berlin Soviet troops was overcoming about three months! I always respected BF for attention to historical details, but in this case, making the module about this period of war the same like previous periodes, where warfare conducted mostly on wide open terrains and resistance of the enemy in the cities (except some cases) was not so rugged, you are making big mistake. Special assault units and equipment vs. new heavy fortifications could be new interest feature of the new module and reflect historical reality. Instead you will issue next usual "tankfight" sandbox Germans vs. USSR ver.1945 with some other toys, but in this time almost devoid of the sense.  But if your conception of the game is just "meeting engagement", well I'm finishing to post next translated episodes about heavy guns and assault groups usage, this is havn't any sense and just wasting my time... 
 

You do have access to 203mm artillery in the game, its just not on-map. CM wasn't built for standing in place and pummeling at static fortification (though you can make scenarios that do it, if you want). I'm reminded of back in CMSF1 days when Steve said they were not modeling 'occupation duties' (a.k.a. Iraq), with its associated equipment, but combined arms tactical combat centered around an invasion scenario (or words to that effect). I expect on this topic he'd probably say their mission statement was never modeling siege warfare.

There's always the world of future 'vehicle packs' though, frankly, there's not that many timeframe-appropriate vehicles that haven't already been included.

Set up times would be interesting to know -  if it's measured in minutes or hours...

I would absolutely support @Haiduk's call for these weapons to be included in the module.