Liberator

As a Linux user I sometimes look through WineHQ for capabilities of running some Windows stuff in my favourite OS. Last week I've found that there is a Wine patch that enable run CM2. It seems that it passed unnoticed, so I'm writing it here.
So far, I've tested demo versions of CMRT, CMFI and CMBS and on my 8-year-old laptop (Linux Mint 19, Wine 3.20) they all run without any issues.
The question is: how it looks with full versions? I'd like to know that they work before purchasing. If there are another Linux users (who don't want to dual-boot anymore) I would appreciate for sharing the results of the tests.
 
Regards

Now I can try to answer the other part of your question. Are tactical wwii tabletop wargames obsolete if you also play CM?
It is tempting to say yes because CM scratches the same itch without having to burden yourself with reading and learning a 40 pages rulebook (or a lot more for ASL) and it probably models most aspects of infantry and tank combat much better. Let's just take armor penetration for instance. You're clearly not going to have the same level of detail with a 6 sided die or even a 10 sided die than a computer algorithm gives you. The PC simulation is going to be much more fine grained and accurate provided it is fed the right data.
There is something to be said about poring over a good old fashioned paper map though instead of staring at a computer screen. And even though it sounds a tad quaint, it has its appeal especially if you already spend a long time in front of a screen for your job for instance. The tactile aspect too is not completely irrelevant : rolling the die, fiddling with counters etc. You'd think it is in a lots of ways a throwback to a bygone era and just nostalgia but you'd be surprised by how popular tabletop wargames have become in the last 10 years.
There is actually a golden age of tabletop wargaming these days caused by a generation of grognard designers who have grown up in the heydays of the hobby in the 70's and who have now reached some sort of peak after having honed their skill for so long. New designers too are coming up with LOTS of new systems and there is plenty of innovation with the addition of cards (to add political elements or randomness), impulse movement (you only activate and move a part of your total force, usually a formation then your opponents does the same), and even simply doing away with the hex grid which is replaced by a point to point system or simply areas etc...
Now if you're purely interested in wwii tactical then it'd be a hard sale to try to convince someone that tabletop is better I have to admit. I have stopped playing ASL the day I discovered CM. Mostly because the rules overhead doesn't translate into a more realistic simulation. Sometimes though, I feel like CM scale is too constraining. You might want to expand your horizons and command several battalions instead of a company or two for instance. What if instead of trying to capture a village, you want to cross a major river and encircle a whole enemy division?  That's why I mostly play operational or grand tactical wargames these days. They scratch a different itch and there is no doubt in my mind that tabletop wargaming does it better at that scale than computer games.
No it is not the same at all. They don't attempt to simulate the same elements. There is a lot of micro management in CM, sometimes it feels too much of it. In Fields of Fire you are clearly in the boots of the company commander only. You pick the avenue of approach, you allocate assets to the different platoons, set up a base of fire, reserves, decide when to push, when to disengage, when to launch the assault, where to setup an evacuation spot for casualties etc... you don't pick the exact piece of cover you want the men of the first platoon to use; you tell them to head for this built up area or this patch of wood but not behind which tree trunk they need to hide. It is zoomed out. It doesn't mean that there are no hard decisions to make, it is just not on the same level. For instance your soldiers once they open fire will keep firing and in order to tell them to cease fire, you either need to have your XO there or use pyrotechnics, a red flare for cease fire for instance.
It is all about orders and command and control. You can give a limited number of orders each turn. But you can set up a sop at the beginning with the different flares and colored smokes at your disposal for when you are not in range or when you run out of command points and your troops will react according to the pre-planned orders. You also have handheld radios, field telephones whose lines can't be damaged by artillery thus severing your communication network, you can dispatch runners etc. It is a deep game but a bit involved.
I haven't tried these rewritten rules. But I'd say if you are interested just go for it. It is a good mental workout and I see you already know about bgg. It is a rather popular game so you won't get stuck if you have a problem, someone will probably already have asked the same question somewhere. I mean the rules are not easy but it is nothing impossible. The box is jam packed full of components, cards, counters and rulebooks but it fits just fine.
 
 
 
 
 
 

I play tabletop wargames from time to time, but not so much wwii tactical. I have Fields of Fire though. It is a good game, I think the designer is serving in the Marine Corps and he has published several wargames; his Musket & Pike series is very good. I have the first edition covering Normandy, Korea and Vietnam, not the one about the Pacific theatre that you are interested in but it is the same rules really.
The game deals with command and control issues with some interesting and unique mechanisms. It is not at all like ASL and takes a much broader view of the topic, putting you in the shoes of a company commander. The "board" is actually made of rows of cards that you pick randomly according to scenario instructions.
One of the Hue scenarios below :

I hesitate to recommend it as your first foray into tabletop wargaming because the rules are a bit of a mess to be honest even though this is technically the third edition. It is not for the faint hearted and you should be prepared to invest a lot of time browsing the game forums trying to decipher the finer points of the ruleset and be ready to face lots of ambiguous situations. But it is a rewarding game, eminently replayable that models elements of command and control and company level engagements that almost no other wargame tackles.
edit :
Oh and I forgot to mention that it is a purely solo game. The enemy is setup on the board and reacts on its own without you having to play both sides if you don't have an opponent.

+1  Cool idea.  I did something similar in the CMBS scenario: Tactical Operations Center.   But instead of the evading unit causing other units to fall back it caused a different AI unit to come forward to reinforce.  
 
Yes.  More AI Groups and terrain objectives.  Especially since terrain objectives are also used as exits and triggers. 

"Control" and victory objective zones aren´t quite the same IMO. I personally prefer a more general mission goal and choose control objectives by myself, not from mission designer. At least not in (too much) details. I.e mission goal "capture bridge", there can be multiple map areas that actually "control" the bridge site. Wouldn´t make any sense to place a victory objective zone (of whatever size) right on the bridge. So I´d like figuring out myself on how to control the bridge, without getting hands tied with going for given victory zones. Main goal in this example would be to deny the opponent any map spots that he can exert observed direct or indirect fire onto the bridge and its approaches. Mission scoring here can be made by placing a general bridgehead area victory zone (but hidden from player) and assigning high point values to certain enemy units. That could be any heavy weapons and FO that exert mentioned control on the bridge and surrounding. These high point enemy units then remain unmentioned in briefing and the player just finds out about them at end game scoring. While not all easy for beginners I find it more interesting and challenging for my own game play and mission design. But there´s countless possibilities on how to set up a mission and a matter of taste at last.

PERSISTANT MAP-DAMAGE might be a good cure for this decease...😁
If we could use large maps and play several shorter battles on the same map might make it somewhat easier on the AI...

+1  

The two big things I've wanted to be able to do as a designer with the AI is:
- Triggers for reserve forces. Would allow the 'rescue/activation' of additional units once specific location is reached on the map by friendly or enemy forces.
- The ability for designers to run both side's AI plans in parallel as part of the testing process. Essentially so they push play and watch a battle unfold. This allows them to see where forces start spotting each other and if the AI plans are broadly working as intended before they send it out to another person(s) to test blindly. Playing one side at a time when you know everything about the AI opponent is a bit of a wasteful time sink IMO.

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

another nice variation!  Hope we could start some "Scripting AIP solution center" sort of thread anytime soon. After the next patch release maybe. Too many good ideas and solutions get lost scattered in too many different threads.

In one scenario I made, I did it a bit differently - I painted trigger zones that would make enemy teams fall back if the player is close to occupying flanking positions, or if the player approaches the enemy positions to a certain distance. This means that enemy teams that have been thrown back will get a chance to retreat before the player takes those hedgerows and guns them down in the open.

RE self trigger evading/retreating AIP units. It works basically. Once the TacAI selects a heavily suppressed (pinned state) unit to evade and it touches the trigger zone, all of its group members get to move to next (rearward) movement zone. This for units initially placed in a defense stance and meant to hold as long as possible from given position. In this case the trigger zone would be placed to the rear of this unit/group. Standoff can be anything from just one action spot to multiple, as long as the trigger zone is in the most likely retreat direction of the evading unit. That got to be figured out fom testing. A retreat trigger zone closer to original defense position gets all of the group to retreat sooner/faster than one placed further back.
Then there´s various possibilities for move mode once the groups (retreat) movement got triggered. Assuming a Plt size group/formation, quick/dash will move more of that group at once, while the more attack oriented modes (advance/assault/max assault) moves in smaller pieces over longer time. Similar consideration for combat stances. Better move back at "cautious" (shoot little) or make a fighting withdrawal with "active"? Many (hard) choices here.
So at last this method might be quite useful for smaller outpost groups  containing just 1-2 units. Once forced evading they "retreat" toward a switch postion as selected by mission designer, instead of leaving that to the TacAI. Sequential switch positions are also thinkable. In case the group survives long enough and no other frindlies move on the trigger zone. So far so good.

One way to expand on your original idea might be...
Instead of painting pretty much the entire defensive zone for each AI-group...One could perhaps be a little more 'picky' 😎
That is...
Make one AI group (or a few)for AT-guns, one group (or a few) for HMGs, simular for perhaps armour, tankhunters and finally regular rifle squads...
Instead of painting the entire defensive zone...for the AT-gun group you only paint every good and decent area of the defensive zone sutable to deploy AT-guns in...And perhaps if you want to even some less good possitions.
Do the same for the HMG group...paint pretty much all of the good and decent possitions to site and HMG in.
And go on like this for all the groups...
This will give the AI a pretty high level of freedom but still help it avoid the really stupid, wierd set-up choises for the different weapons.
 

A few things that imo makes designing attacking AI difficult...
Number one ! The inability of the AI to reevaluate the situation. The AI will NEVER change its attackplan...ever. Not on its own atleast. It has one way forward and one way forward only regardless of how the player defences are set-up. A skilled designer may be able to design the AI plans in such a way that it seeems as if the AI is adjusting its original plan when running into strong resistance. To be able to do this the designer will pretty much have to 'guess' right though as to what the players defence set-up will look like. If he guess wrong the outcome will simply look wierd...if the AI abandons a succesful attack !
Number two...The limited number of AI groups. For a reinforced company sized attack 16 AI groups may well be enough but for a reinforced battalion it is a bit on the low side. Unfortunatelly...If the player commands something like a company sized force then the attacking AI will pretty much need atleast a battalion to provide much of a challange...unless the forces are very unballanced. I belive that one of the reasons for the AI attacks currently often looking like suiccidal human wawe attacks are indeed the lack of sufficient AI groups.
Number three...perhaps not so much of a problem...but to a degree atleast...the low tempo of an AI attack...atleast when conducted over somewhat larger distances. imo ones the AI units gets pinned down it can often take quite some time for them to recover and move forward again...Far longer then it would take a human player to get the same units moving again...They sort of 'get stuck' it seems...
number four...The limited ability of the AI to get HE and smoke on the right location at the right time...(has improved somewhat with the on-map mortar trick)
 

Reinforcement by trigger.
Timed objectives.
Timed AI artillery fire plans.
And of course the biggy (for campaigners).....Persistent map damage.

I've been doing a lot of playing around with the AI recently, and I thought I'd bore you all, and insult the developers, by describing what aspects of the AI I think work well, and what could be done to improve it.
A: Static defence
Firstly, in certain respects, the AI works extremely well.
For example, the simplest way to set up an AI plan in an attack/defend QB situation (Probe, Attack or Assault), which is the type of game I play the most (and therefore the type I am most interested in learning how to produce), is to set up several AI groups, and for each one paint the entire defender setup zone (or a big part of it), and then select a different behaviour for each group...
For example:
- group 1, ambush 1000m;
- group 2, ambush 300m
- group 3, cautious
- group 4, normal ...and so on
In an attack-defend scenario, this will give you a very good static defence, and with a suitable map, will give you a fun and challenging Quick Battle. The AI will allocate the groups very intelligently and will create an integrated network of defensive positions, there may be interlocked fields of fire, AT guns will be well sited, avenues of approach will be covered, and it may place units as bait. It seems to have an excellent 'understanding' of the relationship between terrain, objectives and setup zones.
It's incredibly easy for the map designer and works very well. As a map designer, it will also surprise you. Since all you're doing is painting big swathes of the map and inputting the full range of behaviours, you can happily play QBs on your own maps without any foreknowledge of what the AI is likely to do. Marvellous.
For years I avoided using the AI, because I thought the map designer had to think out all the strategies and (a) I wasn't confident in my strategic skills, and (b), what point would there have been when I wouldn't be able to enjoy the maps myself, knowing in advance what was going to happen?
But I was quite mistaken about just how sophisticated the AI is, and how easy it is to use.
If you do something as simple as this:

...you'll get a really good defence from the AI, but it will be a static defence.
 
B: Responsiveness
Planning an active defence, with displacement or counterattacks, or a realistic attack, is far harder. With QB maps, I've seldom seen either one work well. Occasionally they're quite fun and somewhat challenging, but most of the time - with QBs at least - an attack plan or active defence is a turkey shoot.
The reason for this, and the area where I would like to see improvements is in the AI response, or lack of response, to the actions of its opponent.
I have read comments over the years that programming a truly responsive AI is a Holy Grail that is more or less impossible, but (and this is the point at which I insult the developers), I wonder perhaps if that is true.
I can see the reason why it is so hard...
Imagine a map of 2000m2 - that's 62,500 action squares (250 x 250).

To calculate, at the level of the action square, what was happening on such a map (lines of sight, lines of fires, enemy presence and so on) would involve around 62,0002 or nearly 4 billion combinations of action squares - once a minute or more often.
But if the AI were to react in a more general way - say perhaps it 'observed' enemy movement on the level of 5 x 5 action squares...

A 2000 m2 map would comprise of 2,500 such 'AI action acres', which would mean around 6 million combinations to calculate approximate LOS and LOF.
Given that the AI does such a fabulous job on static defence with the under-the-hood algorithms it has, if the AI were just to react in a general way to the presence of enemy troops on an 'action acre', in a similar fashion to the way it incorporates objective zones and terrain in a static defence (seeking to mass fire on the enemy for units designated 'active', or backing away from massed enemy for troops designated 'cautious, perhaps), you would get a fantastic responsive AI.
The AI already has the capability to produce interlocking fire, keyholes and so on, but it would then be orienting these towards the player's units. Major movements would still be provided as an AI plan by the designer, but the AI would no longer be operating blindly or by clockwork.
In fact, seeing how well the AI produces an integrated static defence with the simplest of designer plans, it only needs to respond fairly generally to the presence of enemy units - anything more would be too much. If the AI were to continuously respond to enemy movements down to the level of the action square with the sophistication it uses to produce static defence, the game would become too difficult to play.
 

I can’t help it! One (last?) time, I want to point out how much I miss proper fortifications. The lack of them keeps me from finishing my Gerbini scenario (and many more to come?) and puts infantry at a severe disadvantage, with the result of horribly exaggerated infantry casualty rates (at least if you consider the duration of a scenario) and the defender's system of mutually supportive positions being compromised very easily. Moreover, trenches are not only usefull for representing actual field-works, but also natural terrain features that you can’t create due to soldier-behaviour (soldiers are not positioning themselves in a depression where they’d be safe from arty, or in a way in which they don’t see anything, etc) and the size of the action grid (8x8m --> a 1 tile depression is still a 64sq.m target for arty).
I’ve created a beautiful visual comparison between the current trench fortification and the ideal slit trench, now give me some likes! As you can see, the slit trench beats the combat mission trench in all regards! What I've missed to point out: Because it stands out, tanks/direct HE can hit the CM trench more easily (causing an explosion that might still knock out soldiers in the trench). With a slit trench, this is much more difficult and unlikely. The almost inexistant silhouette of a trench might also make it harder to direct artillery onto it? 


Worries and doubts
1) Aesthetical: Lowering fortifications into the ground mesh is probably impossible (and if you could do it, the enemy would detect your fortifications by looking at the ground mesh). But what if we simply allowed the fortification (and soldiers in it) to clip/cut through the mesh. Yes, it wouldn’t really look good, but who cares?! I wouldn’t mind if that’s the price for proper fortifications!
2) Balance: Yes, it will be hard to knock out a trench line. But that’s how it’s supposed to be! You’d need to work much more with suppression and smoke. You won’t be able to knock out the trench with 3 mortar shells before you close in. You might still use the mortar to suppress it though. After all, that’s one of the main purposes of a trench: to protect you from arty/mortars! You need to take out a trench with the tip of the bayonet (or SMG, ... or flamethrower....or hand grenade). That's what rifle-infantry was actually usefull for (for any longer distances, you rather use your MGs). And tanks sucked at it (try to aim you hull MG down a slit-trench!).
A bright future!
Needless to say that while a slit-trench would be the most desirable starting candidate, it doesn’t need to stop there. I’m sure the community has plenty of ideas for field-fortifications, including gun emplacements (especially as long as guns can't be dis- and remounted to seek cover in a nearby artillery shelter; in FB, you do get ATgun-bunkers though!), hesco-walls (modern titles), pillboxes in different shapes (i.e. allowing for different firing angles/loopholes), hastily dug firing positions (for soldiers in prone position), etc.
 
http://www.oldhickory30th.com/119th Co G Entrenching Tool by Nolan.pdf
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1005/m1/2/zoom/?resolution=6&lat=4088.5&lon=5231.5

I am sure the programming challenge is not inconsiderable -- finite brainjar hours -- but I feel the addition of even basic pbem coop play mechanics would breathe a lot of new life into the system, and the community.
Even having some friendly forces AI programmed/controlled could add new dimensions -- allowing a designer to assign a player a specific role within a larger operation rather than needing to micro the whole force. Faster play, more fun for those who choose it. Endless possibilities here, and seemingly well within existing design parameters of the engine with some help from newer generation computing power. Fwiw

It is definitely dependent on the amount of weight they are carrying, so yeah, good observations.
I like it, a poor-man's SOP.  Let's get a petition together.   

I wonder whether for CMx3 a slightly more nuanced system is needed; A movement command that just acts to chose the speed of the unit, and a 'state' that you can perform that move in. 
So you might have 3 'states'; Stop on contact, retreat on contact, engage on contact.  If you used a 'walk' move command with the first 'state' you'd have something like current hunt, if you wanted to just peek over a ridge with a vehicle and then pull back asap if you see something, the second would be useful.  The third for an assault - or something like clearing woods.  How successfully the unit carries out the order would be a matter of the current tiredness/training/experience/suppression as expected.
This would seem to increase fidelity without increasing workload too much. 

Fortifications need a fix. They're annoying to place to the point of widespread un-use in QBs, and the objects themselves and how troops interact with them could be improved. I can't imagine the poor scenario designers right now working on The Seelow Heights.
Can you imagine trying to place this in the editor? In QB?!

Lots of ideas and I understand everyone has their favorites, or the course they'd like to see Combat Mission take and that's understandable and quite useful even. So I'd like to throw mine in as well.
I'm concerned about the future of this fantastic tactical simulator. In my opinion, while new units, theaters and modules are all welcomed, the thing that the series is in most need of is a way for the player to more easily generate his own content. I've been playing since the CMBO demo so I've been along for the whole ride, as many here have. I'm not a continuous player, I take breaks and then come back to it from time to time. I really do love the gameplay, to me Combat Mission is the best game of it's kind, and I want to see it succeed and evolve.
In my view the biggest problem is the lack of good content. Part of this is the fact that single scenarios leave me cold, so unfortunately this brushes aside much of the quality content that actually does exist. My preference is campaign play. And here the series falls woefully short in my opinion. I'll give you a little insight from my experience as a part-time player, if you'll indulge me.
Around 2015 I got back in to Combat Mission and bought both the CMBN big bundle and Red Thunder. I played (or at least started) every campaign I could find for both titles. It wasn't very many, maybe a dozen or a few more. Some of them I found excellent (Devils Descent, Outlaws, Kampfgruppe Engel and more). Some I found of poor quality (no need to mention which), and some I found far too large for my taste.
I played for about a year and then shelved Combat Mission as I moved on to other stuff. Recently I had the itch to play once more. Excited to see what new content there was for me to play, I forked over the $10 for the engine 4 upgrade for CMBN and went in search of new campaigns to play. What a disappointment. What I found is there are very few new campaigns since two years ago. The Repository doesn't exist anymore correct? So I found what was available on the Scenario Depot and on IanL's site, which are mostly the same ones anyway.
On the Scenario Depot here's what I found for WW2 titles
Battle for Normandy -- 11 campaigns
Fortress Italy -- 2 campaigns
Red Thunder -- 4 campaigns
Final Blitzkreig -- 1 campaign
All of those CMBN and CMRT campaigns I played two years ago. Combing through forum threads reveals a few more, and more recent. But in the end that's a very small number of campaigns, with little new coming out. The nature of Combat Mission's current campaign system leaves me with little motivation to replay campaigns I already have. AI plans only go so far. Essentially you already know what you're up against,  and the best AoAs, even if the AT gun is in a different place. So I'm left with a choice of campaigns to replay with little desire to do so.
And while I am willing to try anything,  I really enjoy campaigns that feature a core force of about reinforced company strength. I really don't enjoy scenarios that are about a battalion or stronger. These aren't necessarily harder or easier, but much more involved. It's personal preference, and I'm glad they exist for the folks who enjoy them Lions of Carpiquet comes to mind. It seems a quality piece of work from a knowledgeable and skilled author, but it's just not my cuppa.
So back to my main point. As a campaign player I am at the mercy of the scenario designers. One might say well then make your own and stop bitchin'. But what fun is it playing a campaign I designed myself? The scripted nature of Combat Mission means I will know every unit, where they are, what time they are reinforced and so you lose the very things that make playing new campaigns so interesting, like uncertainty. If I know the enemy has four AT guns, and I've already taken out four I know there are no AT guns left. That's no good. I have to proceed as if there might be another four still waiting for me.
At the heart of the matter is there is no way to generate my own content. And little new stuff comes out I presume because making campaigns is so difficult. Didn't I once read that Paper Tiger spent 800 hours making Road to Montebourg? 800? If that's true it's no wonder that so little comes out. What I think the series desperately needs is a way for the player to generate his own campaigns. This idea isn't new around here, and clearly isn't on the roadmap (right?) But until something like this exists, folks like me who want to play campaigns of a certain scope will be left out in the cold, reading AARs instead of actually playing the game. I have very specific ideas of the sort of system I'd like to see, but I doubt my ideas haven't already been offered here at one point or another so I won't make a long post way longer by detailing them.
At the time CMBB came out I was happy with the Operations feature. Sure it had it's wrinkles and there were things I wished worked differently or that were changed. But that system was removed and while the episodic system we have now can be fun, and a good story can be told, it's not the answer in the long run. Not only does it appear prohibitively difficult to use, it leaves little replay value in my view. Combat Mission Campaigns was the light at the end of the tunnel, but it failed and nothing has filled the void.
This post is way longer than intended so I'll wrap it up. I fully support new theaters and modules. I am as eager as anyone to see a new engine. But unless there is also a new way for me to enjoy the game then in essence nothing's really changed. I don't need better uniform textures or additional armored cars and trench types. I need a new campaign system that offers flexibility and a way for me to generate endless content that appeals to me. I hope one day this comes to be.

I disagree.  I think what we are seeing is that among all of the CM community there are different groups who are interested in different periods.  While one group gets "their" game the other groups continue to lobby for their period.  I am an early East Front guy, the earlier the better but '42-'43 is my sweet spot...

A lot of problems with trenches in the game can be attributed to 'user error'. I mean there's often a lack of well  thought out 'fortification' planning, no overlapping fields of fire, no layered defenses,  no obstacles, barbed wire or mine fields employed. Its often just some unlucky dudes sitting in a short line of trench in the middle of a field like shooting range targets. There's also a matter of scale. The more geography your trench/bunker system covers the less impact a single artillery stonking is going to have. Use up all your artillery on the first line of trenches and the second line will give the first line defenders covering fire. Use your artillery to suppress the 2nd line covering fire and you've left the first line defenders intact. But CM battles aren't often constructed on that scale.

Ditch lock a trench, then place a mixture of Marsh, Rocky, & Forest (no trees needed) tiles (or others that are passable to infantry & not vehicles) in the bottom.....Job done.