RMM

Ohh, ok. I have that

Sorry, but where's the link for this? Went looking in that CM2 forum you referenced but couldn't find it.

Awaiting your latest file; although it may be with tears for me!

Ah ok. I figured as much, but wasn't sure from the earlier writing. Tks. We're close to the end, and I have some time this evening if you do

Me too ...or, well...hmm. That's also a political sentiment these days

That certainly makes sense, and I'm finding out my history is pretty incomplete on this, since I thought the 82nd were able to continue to hold that end of it after the attack with Renault tanks. In terms of the scenario VP, I'm not sure if Cauquigny is an immediate total win or not though.

Wasn't really aware of that, I must admit, or is that just an historical note? The scenario's VP only makes mention of the VP values for the Amfreville and Cauquigny VP areas. Would have sent more stuff onwards to Cauquigny if this is true in the scenario!

Good points

@WimO I hope you don't give up and head to your garden my friend! I've generally had a blast with this 507th Good Drop (well...when my guys actually do their jobs anyway!) and looking forward to that Night to Forget ! One can only hope that the elusive 'Steve' is made aware and chooses to take on some of these egregious bugs that remain. My biggest beef is the inability to pickup and share any and all weapons and ammo, regardless of whether it was in the unit's original TO&E! Re the discussion about movement in these scenarios, I could ago along with the speed limit of the 'Move' command, etc.; although, I would also suggest there also be allowance for leap-frogging alluded to by @Ultradave, since that's also a valid, RL tactic when moving through enemy - send out a scout team to cautiously cross an open section, while under overwatch from the rest of the unit. Then, once they're successfully across, rush over everyone else before the situation changes. It keeps a unit's exposure to a minimum, but would have to be on the honour system between players. I do hope 'Steve' takes notes of the Engine 5 Wishlist and things like terrain v's movement that's been pointed out herein, since some corrections and the buddy-aid fixes would dramatically improve what is already a pretty good game system. Certainly better than any other I've come across over the years.

This may roll some eyes, but nevertheless, it would do a lot for understanding ordinance capabilities in the way that we could figure out in ASL using the 'To-kill' charts. If the LOS tool were to give some (colour?) indication of to-kill effectiveness against the target it's being drawn too. This would certainly reflect the knowledge that the troops manning the weapon would certainly have. For example, does a Russian ATR have a resonable chance to kill a SPW at 300m? Currently, I have no idea, beyond the fact that the unit does not take the initative to take the shot of their own accord. If the LOS tool had some indication for just Good, Average, Poor (, 4th: impossible?), that would be a huge assist to people who haven't been playing CM for years.

Ah. Tks. Been a busy week, but looking to get back to the battle this weekend!

CMBB?

Yeh, AI is always going to have its limits, barring our entering a Terminator or Matrix phase of history, which...yeh, no thanks That said, I think it fair to say that CM's AI provides some pretty good gameplay all things considered, partiicularly when compared to some other, real clunkers out there!

Some things from ASL could still be incorporated to enhance the experience: - Beserk units - Russian, Human Wave attacks

But...if one can see it on the screen, that's only because a unit has a visual on it, so how does one enforce an 'honest' C2 in that case? Not mocking; it's an honest question; I'm not sure I understand what rules you're describing as making for a better game based on what players will do or not do. A player only fires units that can actually see those enemy units as opposed to blind area firing at the general area by units that can't actually see or have spotted the enemy unit, but that the player can 'see' because of another unti's LoS?

Borg spotting?

The game does seem to be lacking in this. Foxholes and trenches seem to provide a minimum of protection and are far too easily spotted, presumably because, unlike their RL counterparts, they stick up above the ground, instead of into it.

I could go along with the idea of not having dedicated medics; although again, this game has the potential to offer players differing levels of complexity if only that were built in as options such as this, but I absolutely agree with the idea of points for buddy aid. Particularly in a German v's Russian scenario, it would most certianly be historical in reflecting the value the different sides put on the lives and value of their troops. Western nations not only had a different moral standard when it came to individual lives, but also were not in a position to afford the same kind of losses as the Russians. As Stalin himself is infamously quoted as saying "Quantity has a quality all of its own." I would also suggest that the scenario of 'rushing people forward' could very well backfire unless the player had already essentially conquered and dominated the battlefield, making such a move rather moot.

Absolutely amen to all that!

I have seen BAZ & PzSK recovery from buddy aid, but I would add that in the same event, I saw the weapon recovered but none of the ammo!! Seriously? There also seems to be another weapon/ammo oddity to buddy aid, where if only one body is being recovered from, quite often there's no ammo addition. Grenades yes, but no ammo. Doesn't seem right and can be really frustrating when trying to restock a platoon leader with .45 ammo, since he's the only one with that weapon! If he buddy aid's another, downed, platoon leader, why wouldn't he recover more .45 ammo?

I don't get that though, since casualty and damage stats are already transferred, couldn't the battle map from the previous campaign's battle not, simply be imported into the next battle, if they are on the same terrain?

You're are a trooper for the cause @Bootie! Thank you for your persistence and efforts!

Ah, so that goes back to the original request for a convoy order, because even with such micro-managing of movement orders, vehicles can still get bogged when they try to divert around slower vehicles that one hasn't properly accounted for.

So they'll automatically pick the least risk (from bogging), most efficient route?