DerKommissar

Well, in my experience in development, it's important to focus on critical and, yet, attainable goals. Much like how any offensive/defensive has to focus its resources and efforts at the "right" points. So it is with games.
Could CM have much-requested features like dynamic campaigns, co-op and MULTI-player? Hypothetically, sure. Yet, in development -- everything is a trade-off. When you focus on one aspect, others become weaker. This is just as true for small developers, as well as large developers. I would even argue that this chaotic changing of focus, in order to meet forecasted demand, is why the video game industry is in the state it is now.
I think the most shining, and current, example would be this Battle Royale phase that plagued this year's E3. There are plenty of developers of big game franchises that bit the dust after they lost focus of what made them popular and profitable. Great many of these failures also came from putting too much money into titles that catered to a specific audience.
BFC knows what CM does, and knows their audience intimately. They know their focus and how many resources are required. I respect that -- it's rare, these days. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. You could get Mass Effect: Andromeda.

Speaking of K98s and rifle grenades? Where in the bloody hell is the Propaganda-Gewehr Granate?

How am I supposed to indoctrinate the populace without shooting propaganda through their windows?
I have yet to find them in game! Where's the 'accuracy'? You're telling me this game doesn't model the single, most direct, form of media ever projected from the barrel of a gun? (/sarcasm)
(would you like to know more: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/propaganda-rifle-grenade.html )

Good point! Would be interesting to see the next Ukraine campaign focusing on the "second rate troops" fighting it out with the top of the line Russian armored spearheads.

I felt like the tanks were ashamed to be in "White Tiger". They cried tears of lubricant.

Well, in my experience in development, it's important to focus on critical and, yet, attainable goals. Much like how any offensive/defensive has to focus its resources and efforts at the "right" points. So it is with games.
Could CM have much-requested features like dynamic campaigns, co-op and MULTI-player? Hypothetically, sure. Yet, in development -- everything is a trade-off. When you focus on one aspect, others become weaker. This is just as true for small developers, as well as large developers. I would even argue that this chaotic changing of focus, in order to meet forecasted demand, is why the video game industry is in the state it is now.
I think the most shining, and current, example would be this Battle Royale phase that plagued this year's E3. There are plenty of developers of big game franchises that bit the dust after they lost focus of what made them popular and profitable. Great many of these failures also came from putting too much money into titles that catered to a specific audience.
BFC knows what CM does, and knows their audience intimately. They know their focus and how many resources are required. I respect that -- it's rare, these days. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. You could get Mass Effect: Andromeda.

Well, in my experience in development, it's important to focus on critical and, yet, attainable goals. Much like how any offensive/defensive has to focus its resources and efforts at the "right" points. So it is with games.
Could CM have much-requested features like dynamic campaigns, co-op and MULTI-player? Hypothetically, sure. Yet, in development -- everything is a trade-off. When you focus on one aspect, others become weaker. This is just as true for small developers, as well as large developers. I would even argue that this chaotic changing of focus, in order to meet forecasted demand, is why the video game industry is in the state it is now.
I think the most shining, and current, example would be this Battle Royale phase that plagued this year's E3. There are plenty of developers of big game franchises that bit the dust after they lost focus of what made them popular and profitable. Great many of these failures also came from putting too much money into titles that catered to a specific audience.
BFC knows what CM does, and knows their audience intimately. They know their focus and how many resources are required. I respect that -- it's rare, these days. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. You could get Mass Effect: Andromeda.

Well, in my experience in development, it's important to focus on critical and, yet, attainable goals. Much like how any offensive/defensive has to focus its resources and efforts at the "right" points. So it is with games.
Could CM have much-requested features like dynamic campaigns, co-op and MULTI-player? Hypothetically, sure. Yet, in development -- everything is a trade-off. When you focus on one aspect, others become weaker. This is just as true for small developers, as well as large developers. I would even argue that this chaotic changing of focus, in order to meet forecasted demand, is why the video game industry is in the state it is now.
I think the most shining, and current, example would be this Battle Royale phase that plagued this year's E3. There are plenty of developers of big game franchises that bit the dust after they lost focus of what made them popular and profitable. Great many of these failures also came from putting too much money into titles that catered to a specific audience.
BFC knows what CM does, and knows their audience intimately. They know their focus and how many resources are required. I respect that -- it's rare, these days. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. You could get Mass Effect: Andromeda.

That's my thinking as well. It's with courage and tenacity that Ukraine has held out so long, not weapons systems.
I hope any future module will bring the hundreds of BMP-1s and BTR-80s to the UKR side, not the latest gizmos that have a single unit in service. Heck, even for support D-30 towed guns make up a huge part of the UKR inventory but are absent.

I'd really like that, as well. Kind of a "Conquest" mode, where you move around companies like Risk pieces on an over-map. I understand it's not within their scope of ambition.
However, I would like an optional Force Organization selection for campaigns, like Theatre of War. It would really improve replayability for campaigns.
 

MINUTE 5
Team 2’s ATGM that was in flight last turn missed high again… I think all the incoming fire threw off their aim so they missed both of those shots and in my opinion that is a realistic result.  Baneman opened up on them with several Scimitars this turn, however the team was able to pull back over the ridge no worse for wear.  The AT-7 is still partially deployed, an advantage of moving just one action spot, resetting will take far less time.  They do have three missiles left... next time I use them I need to find a better, more keyholed position, preferably away from the prying eyes of those damned Fenneks.
One lucky SOB (composite image to show the missile's path):

The BMP 2 is now re-manned and I will be moving them toward a firing position next turn to attempt to engage a Scimitar further in depth.

LAV-25 4 moved into a keyhole position and at the end of the turn spotted, fired at and penetrated the Scimitar near the ruined farm (Weapon Mount penetration).  I don’t think it is knocked out yet, so next turn I will be pouring it on.  The Fennek right next to it spotted my hulldown LAV almost immediately and fired a salvo of grenades, but they went long.  Damn that thing has amazing optics.  Drives home that I need to take them out as quickly as I can.  The Scimitars in comparison do not seem to spot my units very well at all. 

At the end of the turn the LAV-AT attached to Team 2 got a firm spot on the Fennek near the ruined farm.  It was taking aim as the turn ended.  I doubt they will miss like the AT-7 team did, fingers crossed.  Killing the Fenneks is now a priority task.

The dismounted recon platoon is closing in on OBJ GARNET.  They are looking for a covered route to move towards the enemy positions.

At Farm 002 the Fennek that dismounted last turn remounts.  That vehicle is useless without its crew and loses all the advantages its optics give him, guess he realized that.
In DUMAYR, Baneman continues to throw his teams forward.  I am going to abandon my positions near the Monastery and move my fighters to South DUMAYR and let them join the fight for that objective. 
The Monastery and Village Charlie are not as important as DUMAYR and I’d like to concentrate against the unit he has engaged there and eliminate it.  With a little luck he could find himself squeezed between my two irregular forces.  Team 1’s BMP-2 will be providing some support fire into the enemy held buildings across from my teams in an attempt to reduce some of the pressure. 

In other news, my Advance Guard arrived in the AO.  I am actually wishing I had another five minutes for the recon battle... it is just now starting to develop and get interesting.  With my Advance Guard will also come his… and he can deploy his forward far faster than I, so could, in theory achieve fire superiority before I can get into position.  KT-2 does provide the highest ground in the AO so that is an advantage for me... but it will be tricky bringing my combat power to bear without exposing them.  I also expect a linear artillery barrage on KT2 in the near future... maybe before the main body arrives so I need to prepare for that as well.

Advance Guard
I have five turns before the main body arrives so I would like to commit the Advance Guard to action as soon as possible.  My intent is to attrit the enemy recon force and the enemy Advance Guard to such a degree that when the main bodies arrive I will have a leg up.  I feel like the battle in EA1 is the key to this battle.  Whoever wins that fight will have freedom of maneuver.

I will try to target my mortars on KT1 if possible.
The T-90SA platoon will be quickly moving over the bridge to support the LAVs that are engaging the enemy recon elements and to be in a central position in order to react to where they are needed.

The BMP-3 platoon will disembark their infantry and then the vehicles will move en-masse to the north edge of the KT2 ridgeline.  I want them to engage the enemy with their ATGMs, if possible one part of the enemy force at a time.  I would love to eventually get them down to the plain between KT1 and KT2 to take the fight to the enemy but that might have to wait for the main body to arrive.

The dismounted infantry platoon will move down the gully and move toward the river.  Once close they will await orders.  My intent with them is to drive as deep as possible under cover toward the river, and cross it if possible to support the irregulars in DUMAYR.  It will take a few turns for them to get moving as they need to disembark, split, remount one of the teams to allow the BMP-3s to operate at full efficiency, and only then can they head out.
Can't wait to play with these guys:

Once the BMP-3s arrive at the ridgeline I will pull the LAV-ATs from the teams they are supporting and attach them to the BMP-3s.  The Syrian Recon Platoon dismounted elements will remain where they are for now and continue their dismounted recon and harassment role.  The BMP-2 #2 will be moving to join its brother so they can cooperate as a team, mainly against the enemy DUMAYR irregular fighters. 
Next turn I will include a SITMAP to show all friendly and enemy unit positions (known and suspected).

Rome was a good series but it wandered away from accuracy at times, the notion that romans were hedonistic and always up for orgies is mis-placed more so for the powerful families.  (Spartacus is utter pish as a view into the roman world, gladiators generally didnt kill each other at games, they were atheletes and very expensive to train and pay).  They were actually very conservative and dignitas ruled all, men of power would never compromise their dignitas for anything and that included going against the mos maorium in regards to morals.  Also my big bug bear is how they badly miscast Ceaser, of all the descriptions of the man, athletic, lithe, with golden/blonde hair and they cast an overweight saggy actor with black bloody hair.  It also shows women as being major players which on the whole is untrue, women were seen as being assets to their family in regards to who they could be married off to so as to forge alliances or marry into money, see old Ceaser marrying his daughter Julia to Marius and thus changing the fortunes of the family Juliia.  Phew didnt mean to go on.  Still a very good series and worth a watch.

Being a dane - and quite knowledgeable in matters of the period - I must sadly disagree:

Vikings is indeed a very entertaining series, but in my opinion it is far too historically incorrect for something that is produced by the History Channel.
Generally, they have taken the old myth/saga of Regnar Lodbrog pretty much at face value. In my opinion it would have been wiser to try ot find the historical core of that myth.
Beides the myth itself there are numerous inaccuracies. Here are a few from the top of my head:
Regnar was a danish king/warlord. In the show he is living in a place that is definitely not Denmark, but Norway. Generally, the geography of Scandinavia is all messed up in the show. Uppsala looks nothing like the place depicted in the show - and Kattegat is not a town, but the sea between Jutland and Sweden.
The clothing of the norsemen is completely wrong - and in the series none of the viking warriors wear helmets as they surely would have.
In one of the first episodes Regnar and his men are part of the famous raid on Lindisfarne in 793 AD that is normally seen as the start of the viking era. Regnar lived much later. He was one of the leaders of the siege of Paris in 845 AD.
I could go on...

I'm toiling through a mini-campaign about a UKR battalion trying to escape kettle & destruction by RUS/Rebel forces. It's based across a single giant map, each battle directly and geographically adjacent to the next and previous ones.
It's fundamentally designed for Real Time play. Although perfectly capable of TB style, RT is where it shines. And by "shines" I mean lit by the burning hulks of BTRs bogged down in 2 feet of mud and bracketed by unceasing RUS artillery.
Fun times!
I'm going less for narrative and more for in-media-res style - ie you don't get setup time or to repo units much, you need to roll with each battle as it happens to you. Several maps have different firefights going on at the same time, making full control (in RT)  nigh on impossible - you literally, must pick what fight to win at any given time. This is where RT might give a far better and more accurate feel to the simultaneous chaos of combat (not that I really know).
Its a slog, but I'm enjoying it..ish.
Only about 2 months left...

Hi steve and devs. its been a while to visit this forum. I was surprised that CMSF3 forum appears. I reallly enjoying AARs of BRAND NEW CMSF game. 
But at the same time im also looking for operational map of CMSF like one of graviteam tactics. is it planned for future CM series?

Ze Chermans :
The Germans appear to favour smaller units and have only 4 vehicles in their recon platoon. 2 of their Fenneks are armed with an MG, 2 have some sort of HE chucker (vehicle shown).

And some tank porn - ok, technically there are no tanks on the field yet, but we do what we can  

Lastly, a slightly zoomed shot ( so a bit foreshortened ) looking directly east of my deployment zone.
As you can see, what I have called Apprehension Height and Worry Ridge are dominating features.
I can't see Bil not sending units up there, so several of my units will definitely maintain an overwatch on them.

My Mortar Control team are posted on the roof of the one building I fortuitously have in my deployment zone and they have good LoS as shown
I will definitely be dropping some rounds on the Height to dissuade any spotters/Javelin wielders. When the mortars are available anyway.

IDK, from my preliminary observations: CMSF 2 does exactly what it says on the tin: it's a "remastered" version of CMSF.
However, unlike many big-name "remastered" games -- I can say with some certainty that this one will be in a playable state at launch. *cough* Dark Souls 1 Remaster *cough*
Did anyone see the "new" Command & Conquer? Yeesh!
All that aside, I would like larger maps, better graphics and performance. Who wouldn't? But, I don't think it's fair to expect that from a remaster of a 2007 game.

I am not a military expert but have played combat mission on and off for more then 3 years. More lately. I started with SF and progressed to BN. My responses to all this.
1 - It is a game. You want a simulator go to the high end stuff, but you’d need a PhD in military science to play it and a computer degree to understand it. I bought a couple of those “games” - not a lot of fun. (Plus most computers can’t handle the number crunching and the crash often)
2. Combat mission was originally designed for war world II - yes things more faster and fire at longer ranges now with more lethal charges to them - so fitting modern warfare into this engine is not optimal but playable (key word “playable” - people are not really dying) Does work better with wwII - more grunts on the ground.
3. There are “wider based” games that call themselves tactical out there - i.e. gravitan , total war, and others (I probably have them all or have played them at some time) They have bigger maps - more maneveurability and are all very good but lose something in the individual commands to troops. Every game I’ve played (started in the 1980’s with text base) give to get. So being a game you get what they say.
4. As for graphics - I think most “casual” gamers (i call myself that and most players are) actually don’t have computers to handle higher graphics. FPS like Steel Beast or Battlefield must have bigger graphics to immerse the person as overall group composition and movement is not as important.  I don’t think many people complain about the graphics - can they be better - I don’t know but my computer wouldn’t handle it. (I know some turn down graphics on most games for playability which to me is first and foremost. (Still the movements are very realistic with no freezes)
Like I said if you’re looking for high end simulations there are a bunch out there - look at HPS - but keep ten books next to you and be ready for crashes. (I recently played in a multiplayer online game like that) each move was taking me 7 hours. Wasn’t a lot of fun. (I think I subconsciencely committed suicide to get out.)
I believe CM is one of the best tactical games I’ve played (more so in WWII. 
Just the a different view from a casual observer.
 
 
 
 
 

+1  Rome was a very interesting show. 

IDK, my good man. I watched a lot of HBO. I generally really like HBO. One of their failings, is that they let their TV series go on for too long (not as long as AMC's, sheesh!). The plot becomes watered down, stakes become stale, and all the magic is gone. Soprano's last season, as well as all the Game of Thrones seasons after the third one (I swear, they make one every year!), Boardwalk Empire should have ended after the 2nd season, I don't think Westworld needed another season.
Das Boot is a tight, little, neat miniseries. It's exactly as long as it needs to be. I do not think it or any other similar miniseries (BoB or Pacific) would benefit from the inflation of a full modern production. Be careful what you wish for, as they would inject it with increasingly more filler that turns a movie-level episode into a soap opera-level episode.
The only glaring exception is Rome. Rome ran for two beautiful seasons and got denied a third act.

You are right about aerospace being the exception. When I was teaching nuclear engineering at NC State, our research reactor, besides doing lots of esoteric research,  also did a side business in NDT by "x-raying" (Not really x-rays but close enough for the layman's purpose)  EVERY turbine blade that was eventually going into GE jet engines. EVERY SINGLE ONE. 
As we've so recently seen, the effects of a mechanical failure inside a jet engine can be deadly to catastrophic. And a sheared off, high velocity turbine blade getting loose from the confines of the engine cowling is about as bad as it gets.
One of the few cases where statistics to determine a representative sample are not used. The risks of even one faulty blade are much too high.
I"m sure Rolls-Royce does something similar. When I was working in England, we had to make occasional trips for meetings at Rolls-Royce in Derby. We were there for reactor design, but right next door in the same factory complex was jet engine manufacture and testing. They do a destructive test on the occasional engine where they explosively sheer off 3 turbine blades simultaneously on an engine in a test stand that's running at full throttle. It's absolutely amazing to watch. The goal is that no part of that engine can escape from the engine cowling when that happens. I have to say, seeing that test, and knowing the work our reactor group did at NCSU gave me a feeling of confidence that everything possible is being done to ensure the quality and integrity of jet engines. And yes, that drives up the cost tremendously. Worth every penny, in my opinion.
[edit]  Cool, found one. Here's the destruction test of an A380 engine. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA
Apologies for straying a mite off topic

Better
P

For this game we wanted to show as much as possible, and yet provide an entertaining and challenging game.  We decided that each of us would take two nations, and some UNCONs and Fighters and duke it out man on man, steel against steel (or Chobham as the case may be)... the only constraint was that whoever chose the US would also have to field the Syrians as the US does come with some advantages (Javelins etc.).
I gave Baneman first choice and he went with his own folks, the UK and partnered them with the German Army.  He suggested that I, as an American should take the US, so what choice did I have?   
As for force purchases we adhered to the following:
These constraints will apply to EACH nation we choose (purchase must be 50-50): Light troops - one platoon of mounted recon (or light armored recon) or two platoons of dismounted recon Armor - either two tanks (1st class: M1, Leo, or Challenger) or one platoon of second class tanks (anything Syrian, Leo 1 (Canada) Infantry - either one company (mounted) or two companies dismounted troops Artillery - whatever comes with our purchased units, plus:  one battery of medium howitzers (one from each nation) UNCONs - will let George select and deploy for us No air We then sent our purchases to @George MC who provided a gorgeous map for us to fight on, and he set us up.. George also selected and setup the UNCON force for us and deployed them.. neither of us knew the force composition or the locations of our irregulars.  George identified key objectives for us also and really this game could not have happened without him.  So, THANKS GEORGE!!!
I will get into the details of my force pick and what I suspect Baneman is bringing to the party in a later post... should be interesting, this is a Meeting Engagement with the following forces arrayed against each other:
BANEMAN - UK and German - UNCONs including some Technical (gun truck) support) ME - US and Syrian - UNCONs including some Technical (gun truck) support) The next post will have some pictures.    I will show some map highlights and include a topo map that I am using to track the action in this battle. 
I will run through my METT-T analysis as quickly as I can in order to get to the action... the first of those posts will probably go up tonight.
Bil

What is this? Is this proof that Shock Force is set in an alternate timeline where Assad allied with space aliens?

90s Stalingrad movie was superb and thoroughly entertaining, except the obligational morality tale. As Eastern Front films go:
I absolutely adore the Liberation series. I have never seen combined arms battle scenes like that. The ATG sequence was fantastic. Valkyrie nicked the Schtaufenberg bit from this series, scene for scene. Except Valkyrie much longer and filled with silly Tom Cruise shenanigans (Tom wasn't too bad in this one). Is it historically accurate? I doubt it, a bit too much of "the national spirit" that's akin to Hollywood films. It does feel authentic, though -- even if it had a bunch of cold war tanks cosplaying as panzers.
The Soviet film industry took a lot of these movies seriously. At War as at War and Only Old Men Go To Battle are fantastic, and you can see them on youtube with english subtitles! 
It's also important to note that I enjoyed Patton, Der Untergang and A Bridge too Far. I can overlook glaring historical inaccuracies, if the filmakers do their best to make it feel authentic. Also, a good story and great casting help!