Howler

It's one of it's strengths for sure. Every CM2 game function/feature is consistent across every title. Essentially, you learn the UI *once* and are able to apply it across the board. A new theater/period merely requires the player to understand the TOEs involved.

Doctrine and the TO&E go hand in hand - each absolutely lead the other. You're certainly free to use any tactical approach you'd like, but the kit is designed to be used in a particular way, and trying to force it into a different direction will usually be deficient in some manner.

The Tutorial scenarios do a very good job of demonstrating the core principles of Soviet doctrine.

The first (attack) will teach you about mass, maximising firepower and coordination with a layered plan for fires. The second (meeting engagement) will take those same core principles, and then show how they apply in a much more fluid and subtle battle of manoeuvre, in a manner which is suitable for implementation in the campaign, but also in the context of multiplayer quick battles.

This kind of tutorial scenario is something which I think is lacking in CM generally - there are an awful lot of questions that could be answered by this kind of thing. Typical examples have included how best to employ a Commonwealth rifle formation, and what the purpose of the two inch mortar is - if there was a simple, doctrinal setup that you could point to and say "if you can't win this with minimal losses, you don't understand it", that would be extremely useful, across all titles and factions.

The Cold War campaigns do an excellent job of demonstrating the doctrine of the two sides, but often with additional complexity, since we're no longer in a tutorial. There is at least one US campaign mission which is an excellent demonstration of Active Defence, and the Soviet stuff is well represented throughout their campaign.

There could always be more documentation, naturally, but field manuals exist and they're mostly very accessible. A "strategy guide" would mostly involve re-writing those.

Nope, just referring to the fact that sometimes you spot 'em and sometimes you don't.
He asked for people's experiences and I'm certain that target arcs aren't a liability, so I replied.

Will PBEM still be possible using the current email exchange?

You're all missing the point ... given BFC's record with predicting conflicts in their games, it must mean that Black Sea will get Brits in a module.

If you've got a unit that's not going anywhere for a bit (I'll often choose the highest level HQ), give it "Pause indefinitely" order, then give it waypoints to each of the TRPs. Then when you "Show all movement paths", you can see where they are. As and when you need to actually move your TRP-keeper, you can usually find another unit that'll be static for a bit to hand over to.
Depending on what you're doing with the TRPs, you can spread the "responsibility" out.
As an extra wrinkle, you can put 50m target arcs at each of the waypoints so that you can actually see where the TRP's benenfits apply. Best if this is done when the spotter you're going to use to call in to the TRP is (one of) the one(s) with a waypoint on it.

Yep it's the time. Check out the compass rose when in a scenario  - it contains a 24hr clock.
P

Excuse me. We Canadians can be pretty hostile. The ref blew a call on a flagrant high stick in last night's game in OT - you should have heard the chats of "You suck REF!!!"
 
Quite the spectacle to behold.

Honestly in testing I didn't really notice, but to be fair I use arcs and armor target commands to better prepare ambushes so likely wouldn't see it that much.

Watch your suppression meter though. It is effected by nearby fire from friendlies.

Watch your suppression meter though. It is effected by nearby fire from friendlies.

Excuse me. We Canadians can be pretty hostile. The ref blew a call on a flagrant high stick in last night's game in OT - you should have heard the chats of "You suck REF!!!"
 
Quite the spectacle to behold.

Are you sure they are all part of the same parent organisation?
 
If not you’d have to place a command unit from each parent organisation  next to each other to enable the two different C2 networks to share info. 
 
If so then check they have active C2 links ie no-one on the chain has a goosed radio for example. 
 
Other possibility is the mission has some sort of active comms disruption eg electronic warfare which will muck up comms and info sharing. 

Congrats!
What happens is a de-cluttering of useless data. Like the day of the week. Every day is now a Saturday so why keep Monday around... that sort of thing.

Just a little update on the scenario links issue Ive been working through... every scenario uploaded after May 2016 has the correct links.... only 9 months left but May had 119 scenarios uploaded... LOL.
 
Getting there slowly but surely.

Check the EW settings: 

When in doubt ... read the pam ...

So, where does one go to find these settings (as in turning them on/off/whatever) for your own account? Not sure I'm grasping the concept here.

Not really much that's conceptually different. The Soviet method characterised smoke into three types of mission - blinding, camouflaging, and decoy.

The first is used on the enemy to shape the battlefield (you see a good example of this in the first Tutorial missions, as you block out the wings, limit the battle to the centre and create your own local superiority there.
 
The second is used on yourself to gain freedom of movement, concealing your own movements and shaping the terrain to suit.

The last is used to deceive the enemy to the main point of attack - in CM that's limited to a human opponent, but can firmly be useful in that role.

 

Just uploaded a new scenario for CMBN + CW forces. After getting a few things straightened around, things went well for the remainder of the design. It's the Canucks again, vs the German AI or H2H. Check it out on my site (in the signature) or at The Few Good Men. Hope you enjoy it  .

Enough of the Commie claptrap, my good sir! Equal opportunity, not equality of outcomes. Wolverines!!!!😇

Thank you! This helped immensely. I'm getting around 10fps now which obviously isn't ideal but at least its playable. 

You might want to talk with my brother (VN combat vet), buddy (VN Dust Off medic), or my sister’s former boyfriend (VN combat vet—Bronze Star for pulling two wounded buddies out of line of fire). It’s possible, but obviously will only be the most basic aid, in only the most necessary/dire conditions, and not trained for nor recommended.  A suboptimal option for certain. But considering the amount of abstraction needed in this game in general, not only including treating wounds and weapon and ammo retrieval, I don’t have any problem using Rockin Harry’s mod.
PS: I wouldn’t have bothered posting this, but it’s Memorial Day and I wanted to acknowledge their Vietnam service in this small way, plus they all had experience with treating or otherwise helping wounded under fire). 

Small preview of the Unification aspect of this mod. All four WW2 families with similar UI elements. Spot the differences. Red circle is a known error.

Portraits - looking to provide a bit of diversification with background smocks/camouflage patterns used by that nation or branch. Difficult for the Allies however... ideas anyone?
Special Equipment and Weapon Slots - Uniform across all titles. (Still messing with some shadows).
(CMFB is the surprising problem child of the group )

Would be useful if you could post your PC specs please so folks can tailor advice and support to help get you up and running?
Or you could file a tech support ticket with BFC and ask them to help get you up and running?
https://community.battlefront.com/forum/114-cm2-general-tech-support/