CaptainTheDark

I know everybody is excited and would like to know what is next after the Base Game... believe me we are all excited too!
As far as follow-on modules go.. yes several are planned, but what they are specifically we will keep to ourselves until after the game is released.  For now the focus must stay on the base-game for us, but feel free to conjecture and dream, I enjoy those threads, but we won't be confirming or denying anything until after this one is on the street.
Just so you guys know that we aren't ignoring you in those discussions, we are trying to stay focused and not get sidetracked so we can deliver this thing in time.
Cheers, Bil

Oh, I'm planning on getting and using it especially with access to partisans for my Crimean scenarios. 

Poor developers just can't win with some people.
 

I am very excited about this Cold War game and look forward to it very much because it is actually the game I've always wanted. Ever since I read the paperbacks of The Third World War and Team Yankee, I wanted to game this out dozens of ways... including a what-if like, what if NATO had adopted the S-Tank widely as a defensive option, maybe as a trade-off for a concession in arms reduction treaties? What if NATO struck first? What if neither side could dominate the skies?

I got back into wargaming during quarantine, specifically inspired by news reporting of government planners using wargames as part of some thought experiments about potential outcomes of an election. What got me interested was the thought, hmm, wonder what kind of wargame(s) they used? Got me thinking of my Dad's Avalon Hill games. I tried a few, rediscovered Combat Mission (I had toyed with CM:BO, I think you call it), and enjoyed some Black Sea and Shock Force 2 scenarios.

But what I really wanted the whole time, since way back when I was a kid in high school first beginning to think about wargaming as a way to model outcomes and imagine what might happen... was this.

I keep hearing 'sandbox' and it's making me even happier. As I understand it, this will be Mac-compatible. I'm so eager to try it.

Ok, if you have a mouse with a left and a right button, right-click on the CMBN icon and select “show package contents.” If you don’t have a two-button mouse, single-click on the CMBN icon, go to the “file” menu, and select “open.” Then select “show package contents” from the drop down. Open the “Contents” folder, then open the “Resources” folder. The “Data”folder is in the “Resources” folder.
You must follow the same process for the all other CM games, except CMFB and CMSF2. Those are the latest releases, so BFC made installing mods on the Mac OS easier by placing the data folder in the game folder.

The barrel in Stridsvagn is fixed to the hull, it always points directly forward. So if you would like it to work as in real life, the hull would need to make minor turns sideways and up/down as the gunner is aiming and moving the barrel. The hull moving up/down is done with suspension, so pretty different than anything in the game currently.

Had a feeling you might make both of those points.....TBH, on balance, I'd probably rather have them with the gun pointing in odd directions than not have them at all (but the purist in me kind of agrees with you too). 

Ordered via PayPal!  this is great. 
And what a deal -- I spend $75 a month for 5 months per year just to watch football, so CMCW for $60 is great bang for the buck, hundreds of hours of playing w armymen in the dirt.

Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said, "Never tell your enemy your secret plans."? 

I give each vehicle a single order action spot.  So for two vehicles each order would have 2 action spots.  It is easier to control the route they take and to keep them from getting to close and in each others way.  The tanks should move at the same speed if they both have riders.  A tank with riders will only go at MOVE speed.  So a tank with no riders can overtake a tank with riders if both are ordered to move QUICK.  
If you use the movement commands ASSAULT or MAX ASSAULT or ADVANCE the vehicles will bound pass each other.  To keep everybody moving I tell the AI QUICK.  Of course, with riders, the tanks will not exceed MOVE speed but they will not try to do alternating bounds if given QUICK.
If necessary I modify the terrain (within reason) to help the AI. 
 
If you do the above, in number one, hopefully the tanks will finish within a few seconds of each other.  
I also give riders their own AI group separate from the tank AI group.  
The below may help.  I think I got most of the below from @George MC. 
If an AI Group consists of only a single team (whether created that way or owing to casualties), it will not execute an Assault or Max Assault order. Moreover, it will ignore all further orders in the chain (i.e. become static for the rest of the game). Single teams will always obey Advance, Quick or Fast orders.
Max Assault – Quick with alternating team/vehicle bounds, one team pass the other team. Should only be given to AI groups that contain multi-team infantry sections.  At Pause locations the AI will fire on painted area targets if in LOS. The AI prioritizes shooting over moving.   
Assault – Quick with alternating team/vehicle bounds, one team pass the other team in a crisscross pattern. Should only be given to AI groups that contain multi-team infantry squads. At pause locations in-between order locations the AI will fire on painted area targets if in LOS. The AI prioritizes shooting over moving.
Advance – Quick with alternating team/vehicle bounds, one team pass the other team.  Teams moving in overwatch. At pause locations in-between order locations the AI will fire on painted area targets if in LOS.
Quick – Quick with the teams/vehicles moving together (no bounds) and stopping together for short Pauses. Covers ground quicker that the above commands. At pause locations in-between order locations the AI will fire on painted area targets if in LOS but will fire for a shorter length of time.    
Dash – Similar to the in game Fast with all teams/vehicles moving together at the same time with no Pauses. Troops tire and become strung out on long moves. Will not fire at a painted target until at the orders destination.    

There are interesting characteristics to observe in scenario author mode. For example experiment with a single AI group of 4 tanks with just a normal advance move. Have this tank platoon go to the first location and wait for an exit time condition to be reached.  And set all the subsequent locations to some time past, or zero. The vehicles will still advance as alternating bounding teams, at first. But with the time condition already met, the tanks will proceed to the next location, the last tank will lag further behind as more moves are added. Eventually they get strung out due to normal terrain effects one vehicle may experience over another.  Once the lead tank is two locations ahead of the trailing tank (typically the HQ trails behind) the tardy tank in the group will skip its next destination, and head directly to the same destination the rest of the AI group is going. 
You would expect that to happen, its just nice to see it does.

Can we view it after it is finished? Caught mention of full battle replay in the works

I like this change of rhetoric over the past 5 years when Steam was seemingly the enemy of all things money. But eh, better late than never, so :salute:
Steam has a fairly large community which is extremely starved for realistic military games. They will "mostly positive" anything that has any kind of bullet drop in it. Combat Mission will be getting those upvotes in droves.

Presumably this is for WW2 era C2.   Modern has to be better, yes??

There's a fancy name for it... 'Integrated battlefield' I think. In theory each unit would have as much battlefield info on their PDA as a CM player viewing the map from camera level 3 in God mode. 😉

That's why in the game it's surprising how slowly info gets disseminated.  

You meant unbuttoned???

This is what I found compiled:
BUTTONED SPOTS BETTER:
Here is a possibly incomplete list of vehicles that spot better while buttoned all the time (but only to the front of the vehicle).
M1A2 Abrams
T-90AM
BM Oplot
M2A3 Bradley
M3A3 Bradley
M7A3 B-FIST
Khrizantema
Tunguska
I don't know for certain, but I think it very unlikely that vehicle crews have night vision goggles, so nearly all vehicles should stay buttoned in low light conditions.
 
UNBUTTONED SPOTS BETTER:
Recon-specific M1127 Stryker with LRAS3
 
Regarding spotting problems:
This is what I found recently in CMSF2 (not sure if same issues in CMBS):
 
 

An area target will have the aircraft search the area with its own sensors (which in the case of Syrian aircraft may just be eyeballs).  A point target will be engaged by the aircraft whether or not it sees an enemy at that point.  So, if you suspect tanks in the open on the other side of ridge, use an area target.  If you are targeting infantry in good cover (particularly buildings), use a point target.
 
The light-medium-heavy thing to me has always been somewhat inscrutable. I personally hate it for modern combat.  Generally aircraft will expend whatever the heaviest ordnance available is first that qualifies for the mission type before moving on to using next heaviest.

They often (not always) can find their own targets.  If I see no targets, I will usually do an area target order over an area I need to attack with LIGHT ordnance (eg MG's) just to see if the aircraft (helo or fixed wing) spots anything.

When calling in air support (rotor or fixed wing) do the aircraft only engage spotted enemies or do they find their own targets? If there are spotted enemies within the designated area do they get priority at all? I can't seem to find any information on this anywhere. I'm always hesitant to call in air support because I'm not totally sure how it works.
Thanks in advance

Attack helicopters, especially Apaches will definitely find their own preys with an area target even if the enemy is static, not sure about enemy inside buildings but they will spot and murder enemies in treelines and under light cover on the other side of the map that haven't been spotted by anyone else. For jets unless there is something moving in the open that they can spot easily they will often just do a fly over and leave if you do that. Of course it depends on the experience of the aircraft.
For fixed wings I usually use point targets too. But now I wonder whether A-10's might not be better at spotting and finding their own targets because of their slower speed. It should be fairly easy to test with the editor.
As far as ordnance is concerned for helicopters I think it works like this :
heavy : hellfire missiles medium : hydra unguided rockets light : chain gun I suspect that heavy means they are less likely to be shot down by Iglas too.
But yes it is easy and quite fun to test, and a good way to toy with the editor if you're not familiar with it. Just create a quick and simple map, add tree cover and buildings and place enemies in them. Then for the other side, add a JTAC and a single air support and try all the different options and see what happens.

Yeah, definitely - those are fantastic ideas.
I'm actually surprised they didn't add the Gray Eagle from CMBS, since they did add the other two drones. It would be nice to see other NATO drones as well - by 2008 in Afghanistan the Canadians were extensively using the SAGEM Sperwer and the RQ-11 Raven (or some derivative of); and I'm sure the Germans and the Dutch were not any different.
As for UNCON equipment - in the ideal world, what would be amazing to see is the ability too choose auxiliary equipment in the editor - much like we're currently able to choose RPG/LMG/Sniper equipment:

 
I think that really depends on the type of battles you predominantly play in CMSF. For those mostly playing BLUFOR vs UNCON, I can see how the addition of Russian forces does nothing for their experience. On the flip side, anyone who plays OPFOR either vs BLUFOR or as Red-v-Red, would cherish the idea of more varied (and better) OPFOR units. 
For example for my taste, one of the most interesting (and challenging) small-scale battles I set up is to play as a mass of UNCONs together with Syrian SpecOps engineer platoon in BMP-3s attacking a BLUFOR urban position. Nothing quite like the feeling of flanking an M1A2 and putting an RPG-29 into it's ammo compartment.
Like I was saying in an earlier post, I would love to see CMSF depict scenarios where the Russian forces are a force-multiplier of a Syrian counter-offensive.
Exactly - that part of the CMSF "lore" is left very much open-ended, and to be honest, I always imagined that the events of CMSF took place despite any Russian presence, not because they allowed it.
I don't think it's a big stretch to imagine that the Russians "tolerated" the Syrian invasion at first, but after the (nearly historically accurate) NATO intervention in the Russo-Georgian conflict, the Russians in turn intervened in Syria.
One thing I completely disagree with is that "Russian forces are not relevant to the CMSF timeline as currently written". I think it's a mistake to treat an invasion of Syria as if it would invoke the same reaction from Russia as did the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan - seems like the real-life events are a proof of that. Sure, currently the Russian and US forces are not in a direct opposition in Syria - but short of that they're also as far from being "on the same side" as you can get.

Plus 1!