RMM

Oh mercy. Can we give, like two thumbs up and fireworks!

Some scenarios I just won't play because they involve babying a gigantic column of vehicles down a single lane road. It takes so much time and clicking that it just isn't worth it, especially since you have to save every turn to make sure a vehicle's pathfinding won't break and create a 20 car pileup. A working convoy command is one of my biggest asks too.

Oh mercy. Can we give, like two thumbs up and fireworks!

Back for this game for long time with engine 4. I am pure ”hobbyist” gamer for these type of games.
Now trying to play CMBN ”Panzer Marsch!” Campaign and scenario ”Le Dezert” I believe. I do not think I can finish it. Try to make vechiles move rationally in narrow roads just make my head explode.
I really wish for and miss simple order I could give as army transportation NCO back in the day: ”Follow that vehicle”

Only the ones that have a 0 second packup deploy automatically. You can't prevent it unless you set move orders or maybe a permanent pause might work too

A vignette from a PBEM game of the Combat Mission Battle for Normandy game. Survivors from a British infantry section make a break for it.

Speaking of luck, I was just playing Meijel Mayhem by PBEM and had decided to lay down some suppression from several of my mud-immobilised Panthers.  One of these was firing at the farm buildings in the middle of the map. Without ever spotting it, one of the rounds passed straight through a farm building and KO'd my opponent's last remaining Sherman (a 76mm version at that) which he was hoping to ambush me with.  Made me wonder, as I assume the Panther was firing HE at the buildings, but it was enough to one-shot the Sherman anyway.

Wim, whatever you can do will be much appreciated.  And who needs the AI anyway, just make all the scenarios H2H 😉.  I've already managed to lose 'Angriff' as the Germans against @Ultradave (as the 82nd obviously).  Oh and 'Timmes Digs In' was a loss as well, same sides.  We also tried 'Boots on the ground' even though you'd said it was not suitable for H2H.  I spent a lot of time setting up for something that Dave didn't do, then a lot of time going from defense to attack, before we agreed to shrug shoulders and move along.  I am smug in the knowledge that I mostly re-created history.
@RMM and I have some feedback on 'Gruppe Bohm to Le Rocher' as well, but I'll put that elsewhere and I imagine you may not wish to re-visit it anyway.

Here I am temporarily resurfacing to give an update about the status of WimO's 82nd Airborne Campaign debugging.\
After PEB14's helpful feedback I had another look at the scenarios commented on and had an eye-opening shock. In come cases AI timings had gone off the rails due to having reduced scenario time lines without adjusting AI. In others I forgot to give AI orders. Some scenarios suffered from reloading the core units file during develpment for one side and then forgetting that it also reloaded for he other side. Overall there were a lot of screw-ups. I think the project was overwhelming for my declining faculties.
So, here's the situation today. I withdrew into my computer man-cave and set about full-time debugging. I decided to create a smaller 5 scenario version of the campaign as a starting point. At this point the following five scenarios have been reworked, debugged, repeatedly tested and confirmed to work satisfactorily when free-standing. To me 'satisfactorily' means that you can win or lose (usually the former).
Manoir Leroux, Angriff der Grenadiere, No Better Place to Die, Saul's Run and Le Motey.
Today I will compile them into a campaign and begin the multitude of play tests required to determine what I feel are the most appropriate settings for Refit, Repair, Resupply and Rest between scenarios. That will take some time.
So now ... I'm going to disappear again for a while.
 

Agreed, game versus reality 😉.

Not just halftracks, but all AFV CE in general. They are far too easily picked off by just one or two rounds of infantry fire. I suspect the modifier for that situation is not as restrictive as ASL's +2 was, and it needs to be!

Exactly how it's done in RL

I just started using hunt. of course waiting until the enemies been suppressed. For example in the training scenario I go uphill to get closer to the building. then use the other half of the squad to surpress the enemy while the first team enters the far left building. then I lift fire

suppression of infantry (or wounding) in front of friendly tanks and IFVs when they fire their main gun. This is exactly the kind of thing real world soldiers and vehicles have to worry about, but is ignored by CM despite it having systems to replicate its effects.

Not just halftracks, but all AFV CE in general. They are far too easily picked off by just one or two rounds of infantry fire. I suspect the modifier for that situation is not as restrictive as ASL's +2 was, and it needs to be!

It has been extensively discussed elsewhere, but something shall be done for SPW/halftrack gunner survivability in any CM3/engine 5 upgrade...

Honestly I don't think this would add much to the game considering the time scale.
I'd better just have the WIA not counted the same as KIA in terms of victory conditions (perhaps not for the Soviets); it would be a realistic incitation to medic!

My concern with graphics is the increased development time they require. I would rather have more content over a photo realistic panzer IV.

Well - graphics that looks 10-15 year old and still run very slow on modern hardware does not help the sales - and more sales brings more features and modules to the ones that have no problem with the 2006 looks. And with a modern graphics engine you can spend your CPU cycles on spotting etc, with super optimized capabilities built into the engine. But more importantly focusing your time on logic that is not built into UE like unit behavior's under fire. And what to do if you spotted something... Or the tank nearby did with a bad radio. Some small caliber munition ricochets off your turret. Close the hatch or not?
So, for a small team you can focus on what sets you aside from the competition instead of the work needed to do a game engine. And the Battlefront games are truly unique in their value delivery as a tactical battlefield simulation. Even really big studios have stopped building their own game engines as the time spent to build your own is not worth it.
Just imagine something that looks and works like WARNO - but plays like CM2...

Graphics are ok.  But wish we had better UI and more useful "auto-commands" to reduce the click-fest eg:
Hide in place in ambush, then shoot, then scoot to a safer location. 
Road convoy command.  
ACQUIRE or SWOP ammo and weapons with adjacent units including vehicles without the cumbersome need to split squads, mount vehicles, resupply, then disembark and join up with original squad...  (Yes, there would be a suitable time delay and limitations of what or how much could be swapped or loaded.)
We used to have a very useful "one-click" 180 degree covered arc in CM1.  Bring it back to CM2.

Ok but was is true for Pixeltruppen is not for vehicles. I was a little bit upset when my Churchill tanks turned the other way on front of what seemed to be quite a small hedge...

@WimO I completely get your point. But basically @RMM answered to your comment the way I would have: if troops can't go through the passage intended, then troops should stop (and a notice of that shall be given). THAT would be realistic.
My point is, except if I missed something, in CMBN there is no way to know wether a low hedge is passable or not, even if your adjacent to it!
There is no ambiguity for the big hedges, impassable for vehicles and for pixeltruppen (except in gaps - which can be difficult to find but tha't pretty fine); but it looks to me that there are at least three other kind of hedges, the lowest of which only is passable. And distinction between low hedges and medium hedges is quite... difficult!

I would weigh in on this in support of @PEB14. This issue has ruined some games where the troops just do absurd, stupid things that really do not reflect reality in the slightest (ie. walking into an obvious, open-ground kill zone and getting mowed down accordingly) in order to fulfill the move command. I would concede that there is, indeed a reality factor in having troops 'check out' whether they can traverse such barriers, but if we go that route, then if it's not possible, they should just stop, and a notice be made to that effect (that they can't find a way through or over). Either that, or they should just stop, and the game load the new movement course it wants to give the Truppen so that the player can review in the next phase whether they want to enact that or something else. In fact, that last one is probably the best solution of all and would certainly reflect the reality of the troops advising that they need to go another way!
However, in general, there are some places where one has to also concede that it is a game, and the nuances of reality a little too hard to come by. This lack of verification of movement orders before they are carried out is the greatest complaint I have always had against CM, and it really does take away from its playability.

I would weigh in on this in support of @PEB14. This issue has ruined some games where the troops just do absurd, stupid things that really do not reflect reality in the slightest (ie. walking into an obvious, open-ground kill zone and getting mowed down accordingly) in order to fulfill the move command. I would concede that there is, indeed a reality factor in having troops 'check out' whether they can traverse such barriers, but if we go that route, then if it's not possible, they should just stop, and a notice be made to that effect (that they can't find a way through or over). Either that, or they should just stop, and the game load the new movement course it wants to give the Truppen so that the player can review in the next phase whether they want to enact that or something else. In fact, that last one is probably the best solution of all and would certainly reflect the reality of the troops advising that they need to go another way!
However, in general, there are some places where one has to also concede that it is a game, and the nuances of reality a little too hard to come by. This lack of verification of movement orders before they are carried out is the greatest complaint I have always had against CM, and it really does take away from its playability.

I would weigh in on this in support of @PEB14. This issue has ruined some games where the troops just do absurd, stupid things that really do not reflect reality in the slightest (ie. walking into an obvious, open-ground kill zone and getting mowed down accordingly) in order to fulfill the move command. I would concede that there is, indeed a reality factor in having troops 'check out' whether they can traverse such barriers, but if we go that route, then if it's not possible, they should just stop, and a notice be made to that effect (that they can't find a way through or over). Either that, or they should just stop, and the game load the new movement course it wants to give the Truppen so that the player can review in the next phase whether they want to enact that or something else. In fact, that last one is probably the best solution of all and would certainly reflect the reality of the troops advising that they need to go another way!
However, in general, there are some places where one has to also concede that it is a game, and the nuances of reality a little too hard to come by. This lack of verification of movement orders before they are carried out is the greatest complaint I have always had against CM, and it really does take away from its playability.