RMM

Just be precise with your click. You can explicitly target any specific floor of any structure that's in LOS/LOF of the shooting unit. Want the ground floor taking out? Make sure you click the ground floor face of the wall you want dropping when you set the area target...

Now let's go to playing the game:

10) It would be great if there could be a cellar to some of them. This would be useful in scenarios where one party's defense line goes through, or very close to, those houses. If the attacker would use a lot of artillery, especially just before an assault of tanks and/or infantry, the defender could rush his troops into those cellars for shelter. There weren't always bunkers or pillboxes in hastily arranged defense lines during WW2, so cellars would be useful. And as bunkers and pillboxes are so easily spotted in the games, defenders inside cellars could hopefully be more of a surprise for the attacker.

11) Another thing about buildings. If the buildings wheren't only one large box with one or more floors but instead one large box divided into different sections on each floor, the destruction of buildings being shot at would have a more proper look and the floors would be more functional for the defending troops inside a building if the building was being destroyed section by section. The result of this would be that the ruined buildings could still be used for defending although some sections were in ruins. Another good reason for this could be that the house to house fighting could become more challenging for the attacker as each floor would have two or more sections (rooms) to clear of enemies.

12) If we could position AT-guns inside large enough buildings and barns, with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from inside them, the fighting in the game would be more like in WW2 times. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-guns. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns.
13) Another thing that would be great would be to be able to hide AT-guns and tanks behind ruined buildings so they can be positioned on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the holes of ruined building, and shoot at the enemy with the shells going through the holes of the ruined building.
The way it works now the inside of buildings is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building even though there are large holes in the walls.
14) To protect the infantry much better, the games would preferably get the kind of shelters which were built into the soil and covered with logs and dirt for some protection against artillery shells. These kind of shelters, and pillboxes, would hopefully not only offer more protection to the defenders but also be harder to spot.
15) It is also a bit silly that 75mm light infantry guns and different AT-guns are so slow to move around. From watching documentary WW2 footage it is obvious that the repositioning of them should go much quicker than they do in the games. The speed in which the crew is able to reposition an AT-gun or a 75mm light infantry gun could often make or break a defensive situation in a scenario.
Below is a test of moving different guns forward 40 meters on a flat and grassy surface. When comparing those minutes of movement to what is shown in the video clip above it's obvious that the crew should be able to use at least quick movement when repositioning their guns. The dash movement should most likely be possible to use too, at least for the 75mm light infantry guns.
  Moving Guns 40 meters
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG18           2.30 minutes
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG37           3.15 minutes
German 50mm AT-gun Pak 38                       4.00 minutes
German 75mm AT-gun Pak 40                       4.20 minutes
German 76mm AT-gun Pak 36                       5.00 minutes
German 150mm heavy infantry gun SiG33    5.00 minutes
US     57mm AT-gun M1                                 3.30 minutes
US     76mm AT-gun M5                                4.20 minutes

16) One of the most annoying things in this game, and something that removes the fun of playing it, is the sometimes stupidly bad line of sight function.
Many times a team of infantry, or an armoured vehicle, can be positioned two rows of trees deep into a forest and not see the enemy which is standing, or rolling around, just in front of them and many times a team of infantry or an armoured vehicle can be positioned behind a dense forest with bushes, corners of houses, telephone poles and other things between the other side of that dense forest and the enemy with thats unit being able to see the enemy and even shoot at them.
If you're standing in a part of a forest which is for example two or three trees distance away from the beginning of the forest, you are able to see what's standing or rolling outside of it.
And as far as I know a dense forest gets darker the deeper you look into it from a position outside of the forest. All the things between a forest and a person or a vehicle standing far away from the forest are also making it near impossible to single them out among the blend of different colours and shadows.
So to have a unit being able to see through a dense forest and all the things between the forest and the enemy seems a bit strange, especially if it is part of a game which some people call a good simulation of the reality.
17) A similar notice can be given to windows in houses and how easy it often is for a force to see what is inside the house even from a quite good distance away without using a binocula. From inside a house one can easily see what is happening outside the window as long as it isn't too far away. But if one is standing on a field or a road, even quite close to a house, it isn't always easy to see who or what is standing or sitting inside a house unless they are standing close to the window or the lights are turned on in the evening. Unfortunately the game's line of sight function doesn't show this.

The picture above is showing US soldiers rushing forward in an attack. The house to the left is on fire and so is the ground in front of it. I read somewhere that houses and ground on fire used to be part of the earlier versions of these games and it would be great if that function came back.
18) To have the ground and houses, and maybe even trees, sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by would make the game more fun to play.
If BFC is worried that some players would exploit this function I'm sure there will be some H2H player rules about this. BFC could also make changes to programming the AI-groups and make it possible for the scenario designers to move the AI-forces out of an area if there would be a fire in the woods. I read somewhere that both the Soviets and the Germans put woods on fire especially to force the enemy to leave those areas. So to exploit this function in a game should maybe not be frowned upon too much.

19) Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches could be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. If there was an animation which have the troops moving while slightly bending over, they would be able to walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head or chest.
To have trenches more correct would also make trench fighting with the troops more fun and interesting while they carefully move along the trench line and clear corners where enemies might lay in wait.
Foxholes could preferably be deeper, single ones and more spread out instead of being shallow and in close groups of four as they are now.
20) It shouldn't be so easy to spot trenches and foxholes. If foxholes and trenches were made different than they are, moving your troops towards or beside them and being shot at would be an unpleasant surprise and not something you expect.
21) If a heavy machinegun-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by or are moving into the area where the hmg is standing it would be great if one or two of the men in this squad or team could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned.

22) When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards a short distance instead of having them turn around immediately before they move to another position behind them. If you for example have an MG-team that you want to move back a bit to a better position, the team could be able to move to that position backwards instead of having them first turn around 180° and then move. To have troops being able to move backwards a bit would way avoid having them get shot in the back.
Infantry that are tactically retreating doesn't always have to do that by immediately turning their back towards the enemy but could also move backwards a few meters while on the ready to shoot while doing so before they turn and move away.
In a book about the German army during WW2 is mentioned the words "We went on long marches, carrying all our gear... We even had to practise retreating in a series of backward leaps — a skill which might always come in handy". I get it that those backward leaps were exactly the movement backwards during a tactical retreat while keeping their eyes open for attacking enemy soldiers.
23) It would be great if the armoured vehicles, like for example halftracks, could reverse a bit slower. Just as lorries, armoured vehicles and tanks can go forward in four different speeds it could be useful to have them reverse in different speeds. To reverse a halftrack slower could be useful if the crew want to use their machine gun when they are doing a tactical retreat and that way support the infantry which is falling back with them.
24) And to have tanks and other vehicles being able to reverse without shooting out smoke grenades every time would be great too.

25) Infantry units that are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always look down and thus have their eyes on the ground just below them, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.
26) I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't soaking wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud, which is one mud tile, is by the road and there is only one or two mud tiles where the vehicle is going. Mud on the fields on a day with very wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. This would especially be true if the vehicle has went over more than two mud tiles as it takes some time for the mud to build up under a vehicle.
If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders would get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if AI-tankriders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobilised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups movement orders to make the battles more enjoyable.
It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle.
27) Armoured vehicles could determine better when to use HE and when to use the MG. It happens sometimes that one single enemy soldier who is running away or popping up from a foxhole for a look is being shot at with HE when it would have been enough to use the MG. A bit stupid to waste HE on that.
28) It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again. It sometimes happen that a gun crew is being attacked which makes them run for cover just to have the threat gone and them unfortunately not being able to return to and use a fully functional gun.
That's it for my list of changes.

The Combat Mission games are often mentioned to be simulations of the battlefields of WW2 and more modern days. But although they probably are good simulations I feel that there are too many limitations to these games. The list contain 28 things that probably could be added to the promised engine 5 of CMx2 or to a hoped for, but not promised, future CMx3 engine.
Most of the things that follows are the same as I have mentioned earlier in this thread. The difference is that I now have added a few pictures and a link to a video.
We begin this with a few changes I'd like to the editor:

1) Trees could sometimes have a broader variety. I often get the feeling that the trees are too thick and look too much the same. Instead of only having one single tree, two trees and three trees of each type to choose from, there could also be trees of different angle, height and thickness to each type. This variety could be randomly decided by the AI. If I for example would choose to place two single trees of type A beside each other the AI could choose two different looking type A trees; for example one thinner and smaller which is slightly bent towards the east and one thicker and larger which is pointing straight up. There could also be the options to choose different type A trees just as there are options to choose a fence which is going in different directions or are to be used as corners.

2) When talking about placing trees in the editor it would help tremendously if there in the 3d environment was the possibility to mark a section of different trees with for example Shift key + clicking on trees, just like how we mark groups of infantry, and copy them to be pasted where ever we want to have more trees in woods or a forest. If we wanted to make some changes to the copied and pasted trees we could maybe remove some of them with Ctrl + clicking just like we remove props we don't want. An option like that would make the tedious work of placing trees much easier and quicker when the scenario map is supposed to have larger forests or many smaller woods. If it would be a problem for a 2d map to register those copied and pasted trees, the copying and pasting could maybe be done on the 2d map.
3) The possibility to make the direction of roads more like they are on the maps we use as a reference would be great instead of having roads that only go straight to the left/right or up/down and bend in 45° and 90°.
4) It would be great if the update of the current engine, or a new CMx3 Engine, could add some more editor props, like for example abandoned cars and lorries which can be placed on the roads and in villages and towns, and more buildings, for example cafes, more shops and houses of different sizes than there is now, which will help make towns and villages become more interesting to fight in.
5) It would be good to have the ability to set an AI-artillery fire order anytime in the AI's battle plans and not only for the first three minutes. The ctrl + c command is only for small arms fire, armoured vehicles and mortars. But sometimes it could be challenging for the player if there was a heavier AI-artillery barrage a few minutes before the AI-troops are sent forward to assault a position. Another thing that would be great is if it was possible to choose how intense that AI-barrage would be, just like how the player does when fighting the AI, and whether it should be to harass the player or a short, medium or heavy barrage.
One thing that would help in this would be to have the ability to make the off-map artillery part of an AI-group so it's possible to use the Ctrl + C command with the off-map artillery AI-group. The AI-officers and FOs seem to prefer to choose the on-map artillery when they request artillery support. When the AI-officers and FOs choose the on-map mortars instead of availabe off-map artillery, the on-map mortars, which have been assigned to the Ctrl + C order by the scenario designer, don't shoot as much on the red marked areas as hoped because some of them have been ordered by the AI-officers to shoot somewhere else although there is off-map artillery available. Being able to make the off-map artillery part of an AI-group would be of help to avoid the trouble with the AI and on-map mortars.
6) AI to be able to use smoke shells which we order by painting an area on the 2D map with for example Ctrl + S or similar.

7) Have the ability to use more than one trigger area for an AI-group. If we could connect more than one trigger area to an AI-group at a time the AI-group will stay in position and move when the enemy has entered any of the two or three trigger areas.
An AI-group could for example be connected to two trigger areas which would mean that an AI-group stays in the position where it's been placed. But if the enemy would enter any of the trigger areas it moves to the position for defense which the scenario designer has decided for the group to move to in cases of necessity.
If both triggers areas would get activated at the same time there could maybe be another string of code, or strings of codes like a counter tied to the trigger area, which would make the AI-group move to the position where the threat seems to be the most severe.
If the trigger areas were able to count the amount of enemy soldiers that enters them, scenario designers could decide in advance how many soldiers that are needed to enter to be counted as a threat and cause the AI-group to leave its position to move towards the threat. It would probably have to work a bit differently when it comes to trigger by enemy armour as one or two armoured vehicles can cause a lot of damage.

8] More than 16 AI-groups, preferably at least 32 or 40, so the scenarios can become more tactical, more interesting and more fun to play against the AI. It's sometimes a bit frustrating when you need to decide which units are "less important" so they all can be put into one or two groups when you really would like to have them in four or maybe six different groups to make them able to for example surround the player's troops.
Sometimes it would also be useful to have an officer responsible for off-map heavy mortars as his own one-team group, or their own groups if there are two batallions with such an officer in each, so they can sneak up to a good position where they are more able to hide, being only a three or four man team, and direct requested off-map heavy mortar artillery fire on the Player's troops.

9) Most likely for a CMx3 engine: If there was the possibility to go between the 2d map and the 3d environment without having to exit and load any of them, making maps would be much easier and go much quicker. One way to make this possible could be to have a tab system in the editor where the 2d map is on one tab and the 3d result of the 2d map is on another tab. To control the result and make other changes one would only have to go between those two tabs. To go between the 2d map and the 3d environment without having to exit and load either of those two would also make it much easier and much quicker to do the AI-orders as one sometimes have to go to the 3d environment to make sure that what is planned for will be possible, for example to make sure a unit hopefully will be able to have eyes on a certain area from a certain spot.

bad karma 🙄

What goes around, comes around!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0eqjuxiev3vc8nr/What comes around goes around.mp4?dl=0

I know this has been mentioned many times but , maybe a rolling barrage could be set up. Like now you can set pre start point, area, linear zones,with duration, saturation, and purpose. Seems like a rolloing barrage tile could be added under the arty selection ,point,area,linear,...rolling. You can Set these at the beginning , or even mid game , providing LOS after start. Just have the , rolling tile , allow multiple entries ,after you set the the tube, type,duration , general personnel, and the time. The time selection , immediate,  five , ten , fifteen min , could be linked to a adjust fire command , and you set the next waypoints , up to four. just without the spotting and recieving time delay , there could be a briefer preparing delay , coordinate adjustment only.  So with what is currently in the game, almost, you could at least set up four linear,area,or point rolling barrages. And this would most likely have to be set before turn one starts , as LOS , unless you have multiple drones, prevents you now from making just ,coordinate strikes , all over the map.

I'd wish for the ability to play back an RT saved game. I don't like to play RT, mostly because I miss too much of the spectacle, the pretty lights, the thing that blew up over there or the awesome firefight my platoon won while I was looking elsewhere. I would like to play RT but be able to play back a saved game file.

Or even just a way to package the finished game into a file I can play back and rewind, whether it's RT or turn-based. I really enjoy seeing it all play out from different angles. Big part of the fun for me.

Ok, well I'm proud to have kicked off such a heated discussion. I really like some of the points that have been raised so far.
Points I found convincing:
-It takes just a few moments to increase the time limit in the editor anyway.
-The time limit is necessary for scenario designers to employ the 'reinforcements that never arrive' trick in order to prevent the AI from surrendering before the designer intended.
Points I didn't find convincing:
-The time limit helps with balance. While this is true, I kindof feel like balance is overrated (a very fringe opinion, I know). I care far more about realism than I do about balance. And a time limit feels like a very artificial and gamey way of achieving balance.
-Real world orders almost always tell you to accomplish an objective within a certain amount of time. This is also true, but I tend to file this under 'one of the most common parts of the plan to fall apart on first contact with the enemy'. You usually won't give up trying to take an objective just because you didn't take it as quickly as you were supposed to. Engagements don't suddenly end just because they took longer than intended. It is reality, not command intentions, that I want my games to emulate as closely as possible.
Ok, I actually found that last point semi-convincing. The reason is because I like the idea of having some victory points being dependent on winning the battle within a certain time-frame. So while you can take as long as you want if you are content with a tactical victory, if you want a total victory you need to keep an eye on the time. 'You are ordered to accomplish the objective in a certain amount of time' isn't a good reason to have a firm time limit (in my opinion), but it is an excellent reason to tie some victory points to a soft time limit.

Your experience tempts me to walk back my statement. But it will take quite a lot of convincing to bring me around to the idea that so much of the military history I've learned over my life could be so wrong. From what I've heard and read it is pretty rare to accomplish something such as capturing a heavily defended city block inside a single hour of fighting (for example). While fighting over a single CM scale objective won't generally take multiple days (sometimes it will, but those can be pretty easily broken up into multiple scenarios) it is not uncommon for it to take several hours to decide a single engagement. 
Some examples of real world CM scale engagements:
-The assault on Brecourt Manor took around 2-3 hours (Winters started his reconnaissance at 0830, I'm not sure exactly when the first shot was fired and the assault began, the force withdrew at around 1230, https://www.wwiidogtags.com/ww2-history/assault-on-brecourt-manor/ said 2-3 hours for the assault so I went with that).
-The capture of Carentan (just the town itself, since the whole battle of Carentan is a bit larger than you would expect to fit in a single CM scenario) took around an hour and a half (0600-0730) for the force attacking from the north and the force attacking from the south to meet in the middle.
-The Battle of Bloody Gulch (a large CM scenario, but definitely small enough to be a CM scenario) took about 7+ hours from the commencement of the German attack at 0700 to the arrival of tanks from 2nd Armored Division at around 1400 (I'm not sure exactly how long after the tanks arrived it took to actually drive the Germans off).
I chose those three examples because they were relatively easy to look up. I did my best to avoid cherry picking by choosing to include a particular engagement before looking up how long it took. While these examples represent a small sample size, I hope they are enough to illustrate that while it is not uncommon for CM sized engagements to take approximately a standard CM time limit amount of time to play out, it is no less common for them to take considerably longer.
I suppose as a nod to the fact that leadership really does have expectations for how long it should take to accomplish a given objective you could introduce time based objectives that give the player X points for defeating the enemy within a certain amount of time. But I suppose the main motivation for my statement "...there is really nothing realistic about time limits." is this: How common is it for a mission to be considered a failure because it wasn't accomplished within the expected amount of time? I haven't heard of many missions that were scrapped just because they took longer than they were supposed to.

The Market Garden maps were the first of the concept (there were some vague plans mentioned around the idea of making generated maps, built from pre-made tiles, but this didn't come to anything). I think the idea of keeping master maps in their own directory came later.
 
Functionally, they're just scenarios (big, empty scenarios), so there should be no harm in moving, altering or deleting them.

Not normally, the master maps are provided so scenario editors can cut them down and use the section they want rather than having to create the map from scratch. I’ve found that sometimes the master maps make their way into the Scenarios folder in the Game Data, mostly CMBN (Market Garden maps in particular seem to be in the Scenarios folder) so it’s possible they’re just in the wrong place  They usually live in a Master Maps folder.
The only way I know of to be sure would be to move them and then try loading all the scenarios and see if any of them break  But someone may know of a better way to check.
MMM

- Animation and texture for shells falling in water (no dust)
- Snow cloud when shells fall in snow, especially on deep snow map (like dust cloud on dry ground, it could look like smoke bombs)
- Tracks of tracks/wheels, vehicles in snow and fields.
- Textures for vehicles and armored vehicles in flames or having exploded. Vehicle models destroyed.
- Sidewalks and stairs for cities.  Representation of emblematic monuments of Paris, Berlin, Rome. A more detailed representation of factory interiors such as in Stalingrad etc.
- Sound opening / closing tank hatches (as in CMX1). Sound rotation of the tank turret, possibly sound reloading of the shell.
- Animation of armor shell firing: in CM the tank locates a target but during the time taken by the shooter to calculate the distance and lock the target the gun remains in its initial position, then lines up and fires immediately (this is may be realistic in CMSF, certainly not for WWII tanks). The gun should line up as soon as the target is acquired, but the gunshot should not be fired immediately to better represent the reaction / action time which varies with the skill level and condition of the crew.
- Correct  bugs in the excellent campaign "Amiens tonight" of the battle pack CMBN (Amiens not Ameins, "Jellalabad road" on map !! It is not Iraq. In the third scenario absence of units, no officers or flamethrower team without flamethrower, cause: number of trucks problem).
- CMSF2 : ability to order the Bradley to execute a short shot at a building without using their TOWs.
- Sound artillery call for the Syrians.
- French army
 

-group isolated soldiers  who have lost their headquarters and be integrated into another squad regardless of their category (one helping each others).
-allow any soldier to use weapons or vehicles with by exemple a penalty in time if this one is infantry (those who must learn the manipulations on the spot) but are able to use it after a certain time (suspense for the player to see if or when and how the soldier with be able to use it).
-different colours to recognize squads.

So having given up on GIMP coz of import and export isues, http://greenfishsoftware.org/gfie.php did work right away.
@kohlenklau somehow, I missed your suggestion about free paint. Apologies, but look like this greenfish makes it even fewer steps.

Yup, finally got around to trying this out, and it was done immediately on the first try! Thank you for relieving my angst sir!

Not sure if this is part of the issue...
I just remembered, GiMP has some stupid issue with not being able to export BMP files with the proper bits. 
My SOP is to do my art work in GiMP and then export as a bmp file. THEN I open that bmp file in free Paint.NET and immediately save again and it always works. Ridiculous but it is what it is.

LOL that's a great way of putting it.
I know people have figured out the settings for GIMP and Photoshop to save a BMP that will work in game but I never have. I got frustrated trying to get Photoshop to work and eventually just switched to the Greenfish editor: http://greenfishsoftware.org/gfie.php
It's default settings for Windows BMP files work for me in game.

Ideally 10 meters or less distance, they will attack on their own, throwing grenades or charges, if not, just use the target command.

I found just put a team with grenades on an action square to the the rear.  I have had as many 3 grenades in the air at once.  Then, when the enemy comes out the back door armed ... brrp!!!
It is all about interlocking fields of fire and finding the pivotal point where to begin taking it apart.  It's kind of like pawn skeletons in chess.  Once the key position falls, the whole thing will come down.  The hard part is the shape of the map and not being able to get to the base supports of the defense.  Indirect fire works well for this.

melee
fire which can burn!!!!
random map genrater
 
 
 

I use an old version of Gimp (2.6.7) as it seems to work fine for CM bmps and transparencies. Can be done as simply as SELECT> BY COLOUR, then COLOURS> COLOUR TO ALPHA. Then, and this is important in this version of Gimp, FILE> SAVE AS.. (name) and when prompted press SAVE, a box with Advanced Options tree should pop up and make sure 32 bits A8 R8 G8 B8 is the one checked, otherwise it may well not save as 32bit. This will automatically save as a transparent alpha channel. Just one more way of getting round inherent oddities with Gimp!

I'm really glad you liked "Changing of the Guard". It was one of my more "innovated" scenarios to date. I would be interested to hear what it was about "Beach House" that didn't turn your crank. Of course, not every scenario will tickle everyone's fancy, but if there's something in there that didn't work right (and I happen to know there is), then I can watch for that problem going forward. 
Thanks very much indeed for the compliments on the artwork. Much appreciated  .
Thank you too for the feedback. This really helps me improve my work, and that's always a good thing 👍

Okay, so here is the thing. The regular GIMP bmp importer does not support transparency. Your problem is on the input, not the output. The file inside gimp has no transparency / alpha channel.
However, I found a workaround:
- convert the bmp file to a png file using ffmpeg
- import that png file into gimp. It has the proper transparency. See attached xcf file
l.xcf

Instead of automating these micromanagements, I think because should focus on making CM coop-friendly. We are playing a coop game (2vs2) right now and are having a total blast. 
Bfc blessed us with being able to micromanage our units with ridiculous detail. Why do you guys want to remove this?
I vote for loving your pixeltruppen more, and instead of renoving the load, divide it!

New scenario available from Canuck21.

A composite rifle company from the Fusiliers Mont-Royal Infantry division with support from the 27th Armoured Regiment is tasked with the re-taking of the Troteval Farm, north of Verrieres, France, on 24 July, 1944. They are facing elements of the Infanterie Division 272, about 1 company in strength with some support from the heavy weapons platoon. Note this is a converted (by me) ASL scenario.
PLAY CANADIANS VS GERMAN AI OR H2H
SMALL; DURATION 40 MIN; WX COOL, NO WIND, GROUND IS WET
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/cw-cmbn-troteval-farm/