Leaderboard

The most frustrating thing to me is that when someone complains about the comms blackout, it's immediately run up as a tirade about missing deadlines. There are a number of people who have specifically stated that its not about the date, its about being left in the dark. Can someone who is in any kind of "know" just address that? And its not just about this site. There are threads on other sites where the attitude is much harsher about the lack of updates. And those sites should be a marketing dream for BFC. Instead, BFC is vilified for not communicating. A simple five minutes to post an update would solve this particular point. A simple "Its taking longer than expected. Limited time, overly complex, unexpected challenges, dog ate my homework, yada yada."

While there is certainly some overreaction going on about the late demo and release here that surely won´t benefit anybody but this isn´t even the part that annoys me so much. After following this thread and skimming trough many recent I must say what definitely annoys me is the fact that most suggestions and ALL negative feedback , no matter if it is about Battlefront or related to the Combat Mission games itself, no matter if it is valid and very well thought out, no matter if the author invested his time into it, it is always compromised in a perfidious way by the same two, three overbearing forum members to such an extent that productive effort is almost impossible to be made or the thread is turned into a goofy trolling space. It is like if a forum police is going around here 24/7 looking for instantly shutting down anything that is too progressive or could be perceived as criticism in the slightest possible way. Frankly I can´t remember ever have seen such a severe case of that before and I´ve been to alot game or sim forums. If you guys´ believe you´re helping the devs with that, you surely do not.

If you want the official, top level word on how the US sees various countries, regions, organizations and NGOs, tech, economics, etc., in terms of being threats to US, regional and global security, then here is the UNCLASSIFIED answer--straight from the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) in February 2018. Ought to provide lots of interesting gaming and game design possibilities. As things stand, would say this relates to CMBS and CMSF (soon CMSF2). But our clever scenario writers, map makers and mod creators can do all sorts of magic, too, using them as kits from which to make their own creations. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf Regards, John Kettler

WAAAH! I had many a frustrating but fun night playing Trespasser. Man, that game had the absolute WORST controls ever seen! I actually finished it, though. As far as the dramatics go, I just wanted to know if SF2 is gonna be late, so I can re-calibrate my expectations. I think that's all most of us wanted to know. But at this point it's looking like it will be LOL. Three more days and the question will be moot and answered. Mord.

I would love to pre-order CM:SF2, but my concern is whether the game is going to be delayed. We're already at Sept. 27 and no further info has been released, at least from my understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have full intention of purchasing CM (seems like a pretty incredible game), but the fact remains I could spend my money on something else for the time being (Steel Beasts, TrackIR, etc.).

i think big part of uss are waiting moustly 4.0 engine patch. because that is take too long to get out of pipe line.

I recall one scenario where my pixeltruppen were repeatedly hit with mortar strikes over the course of the most miserable hour I have probably ever experienced in any "game". Every single time I would gather up my shattered troops & think to myself "well at least there'll be no more mortars"... at which point my newly concentrated troops would get hit again by a new round of mortar strikes. Eventually, after losing a **** load of my men crossing a bridge & getting hit by hidden machine guns, I managed to outflank the enemy position & launch my final assault. The few remaining men, backed up with the last of my tanks, managed to capture a decent chunk of the enemy hill before the shear impossibility of the task I had set them broke them & they fled back off the hill. At that point, my handful of wounded, shell shocked survivors were greeted with the news that they had apparently won a "TOTAL VICTORY". As I surveyed the bloody & burnt mess that this disgusting game had resulted in I felt no joy, not one bit of joy at all, in the misery of my "victory".

I am sorry if the answers you get aren't to your liking, but we don't really get to decide that. People ask the same question over and over again when they have a release date and the answer is always the same - Steve isn't normally gonna post about it. I even included the last time he replied in August where he specifically said so. Maybe the problem isn't the answer. Signed - The Forum Police (behave or we'll taser you)

As a ex-artillery officer, here are the principal differences between the types of platforms. Mortars are high angle only and are incapable of direct fire. Given an equal caliber, a mortar will have a higher rate of fire than a howitzer or a field gun. Mortars (except for the very largest) can be broken down and man packed or carried by improvised transport (like the bed of a pickup truck). For getting directly behind tall intervening terrain with fire, they are a preferred weapon. Most effective against infantry, limited effectiveness against vehicles, emplacements and buildings. Lethality inceases with caliber but portabillity/mobility decreases. Howitzers are capable of direct fire, indirect fire and high angle fire. They are either towed or self propelled. Can get really big calibers. Very effective against infantry, limited against vehicles and emplacements. Preferred weapon of choice of you don't have airpower and want to level a position, a building or structure. Biggest variety of ammuntion type - illumination, Smoke - Base Ejecting, Smoke - WP, Cannister (anti-infantry direct fire),HE, ICM, DPICM, and smart munitions and variable time and time fused ammunition. Field Guns are direct fire weapons and in a pinch, can do low angle indirect fire, limiting their range and usefulness. A anti-tank gun is a example of a specialized field gun, for example. Can get to big calibers like howitzers and are either towed or self propelled. Not a lot of field guns are made anymore due to their limitations as tanks have largely taken over the roles the field guns used to provide. In general, the larger the caliber, the bigger the lethal zone. The larger the round, the smaller the CEP (Circular Error Probable) footprint - a fancy way of saying that if you want to hit a point target, you get the biggest caliber you can get as the round is more stable in the air and less affect by meterological and has a smaller CEP footprint. The larger the caliber, the more destructive it is to vehicles and structures and emplacements. Bigger is better. Call or response times are not weapon dependent. They are determined by the communications capability and doctrines of the C3 systems used by the army in question. Lighter weapons like small mortars can be set up quickly and torn down quickly but once emplaced, once a call for fire goes out, it is the C3 systems, crew training and observer training that determine how fast you see a round on the ground. Combat Mission games try to simulate artillery systems and capability. Why does it take longer to get a 155mm round on the ground verses a 80mm mortar round base on what I stated above? The delay is to simulate the fact that mortars are closer to the enemy than howitzer systems and to reflect time of flight realities. For example, most of the time, a mortar 1 km from the enemy will tend to have a round on the ground sooner than a 155mm howtizer shooting from 7 km away. And the chain of command / communication issues are simulated as well. A US 155mm is not inherently faster than a Soviet built 152mm yet in game, the US player will get fire for effect well before the Syrian player will. This is doctrine and C3I being simulated in game. So the bigger delay in response time is coded into the game to 'simulate' that. Hope that answers your questions.

For anybody interested I have many hundreds of scenarios & campaigns (apparently all will be playable in CMSF2). I got rid of a bunch of duplicates/older versions & renamed a lot of them so they're easier to sort out... https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s67v5pnem3x0kp8/AAAhJTwMwh6kJHWaz1qFDZjGa?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1mu30n0qsjw3sk0/AABb-_fnlr21dLxGVv6a7VAVa?dl=0 ... I estimate there's about 800 scenarios if you include the campaigns.

That's intentionally misleading. People are taking issue with no subsequent posts being made, not with the initial announcement, and not even with the date possibly slipping. My god - it is alarming to think that the message they might receive is to not post at all, rather than "post more than once".

My bold. Yeah, I'd say a lot. No, I won't be pinned down to a percentage! As to the "not at all" (re-pre-order, if that's a word), well, c'mon: this is Combat Mission. You'll do it. You may grumble, but you'll do it. FWIW, I don't commit money to pre-order...ever. But, that's only because I got burned in the past. (See "Trespasser", an early computer game loosely based on Jurassic Park. Yeah...never again will I order after I got that p.o.s.) There's a boardgame company which lets you pre-order, but they do not bill you until the game is about to ship. As in a day or two prior, if that early. However, BFC has an ironclad reputation for delivering... It's just that they also have a reputation of taking longer than a lot of folks would like. This is a case in point.

Pre-order is the old school version of Early Access, only without the playing part.

Paradoxical statement!! Either they did provide an indication or they didn't! Regardless, preorder implicitly requires some indication for release, otherwise it renders the concept of preorder totally meaningless. For arguments sake, if it were "leaked" that the game won't be released till next summer, how many here would opt to have their money back for now and we'll "preorder" again next Easter instead (or perhaps not at all)?!!?

It's actually classified as a Machine Gun, despite firing 40mm explosive rounds. It's still belt fed, and although it can fire indirectly onto targets, it's primary fire mode is direct fire.

This appears to be some the text that the video I posted above is based on: https://prodev2go.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/rus-ukr-lessons-draft.pdf Fifty pages written in 2015. It's very good but lacks the graphical presentation (e.g. maps) that the video has. But I think it is an important piece of work regarding modern warfare. I will post these links over in the Black Sea forum too. Kevin

If you could draw a line (like we can with arty and mortars) that would be the optimal solution. Call it "Target Line" or something to that effect. Then MGs could sweep from point to point along the line. As far as rifle squads go, they already have the ability to shoot in as many directions as they have men so I don't think it would be outside their ability. Each man would fire at an interval along the line or something. Mord.

That is a wonderful description of how well this game replicates tactical outcomes. Sometimes, it sucks. This obviously impacted you. That is a role of modern entertainment. You'll remember this particular battle for a very long time. The cool thing? That you kept at it...and finally got to the (miserable) end. Not every battle ends in victory. This game produced a memorable event. THAT is impressive.

Besides all the detailed discussions of some of the suggested points, I thought it would be usefull to offer a compilation of all the suggestions so far. If I missed something, please let me know! Compilation of improvement suggestions so far (not including obvious bugs such as the "leave the trench"-issue) New orders/options for the players Ability to chain together several “target briefly”-orders in one turn. This should allow some weapons to suppress a larger front than just 8 meters per turn=minute (at the cost of reduced suppression intensity/reliability, of course). For some weapons (HE, MGs), firing at a 8-meters target for a full minute is an overkill and waste of ammo. Giving these units the option to spread out their fire would make them far more usefull in supporting an attack. For vehicles only, a very tedious work-around is to use multiple very short waypoints and plot target commands on each of them. The suggested feature would would contribute to the game in a slightly similar way as the feature that allows us to split up our squads: it reduces problems caused by an imbalance between "unit size/weapon capability", "grid size/resolution of space" and "turn intervalls/resolution of time". [Idea for implementation: "clear target" --> deletes all target orders given so far; target briefly --> adds a new target briefly order that gets triggered once any former ones have expired. Visually, a number could be added to the "target briefly" text] Option to lock a stance in order to let an infantry unit keep its LOS on a particular area – soldiers randomly go prone, which might lead to a loss of LOS on an area Dis- and remount orders for crew-served weapons (uses: “Shoot and scoot” for AT weapons – don’t pack up if you see that the tank is aiming at you!; Seek cover in artillery shelters/dugouts for weapon-crews, etc.) Editor & Scenario Design Fixed artillery fire-plans, set by the scenario desginer Option to leave some "friendly" troops under AI-control (or at least immobilize them), so that the player takes control only over a part of the friendly forces present on the battlefield Some option for scenario designers to disallow the attacker to creep along the edges of the map (movement restricted zones?) Quickbattles (including force selection) Ability to move units/formations up/down in the OOB Ability to copy/paste a formation/unit Right indent for units that are part of formations For modern titles: Electronic Warfare Strength should be chosen secretly by each player? A setting to give some initial recon to the attacker (not just in assault type engagements). Maybe the attacker could buy some “recce patrol” marker he could place on the map, and get a suspected contact if there is an enemy unit somewhere within the radius of the “recce patrol” marker. The quality of a recce patrol could have an effect on the "radius" of the marker. Ability to buy reinforcements (the later they arrive, the cheaper they are) “Typical only” toggle - if on, XP/morale stats of units are locked for the players. They need to deal with what they get Ability to create your own units from smaller pieces ("OrBat creator/editor for quick battles, and maybe even campaigns. / Make your own battalions, companies, etc. per point count and then use them -- like tabletop.") Option to save and load OOBs New equipment/units/mechanics/features Flares Trenches and field fortifications in general (narrow slit trenches, gun emplacements, pillboxes in more varied designs, hesco walls + nato wire for modern titles, fighting positions for vehicles, etc) Fluff / Aesthetics Some way to evacuate wounded soldiers (and reward it) When zooming in (Z/X hotkeys), the game should render the zoomed-in area in high detail Unit-icon toggle (alt + I ) should also toggle on/off target reference points More visible fog if the weather condition is “dense fog”. Windmills for Final Blitzkrieg Minor stuff (specific to individual weapons, units, etc) M40 GMC should switch to 155 HE if out of HEAT rounds, but still firing at tanks. Even that size HE shell would destroy enemy tanks. Ability to disembark from a bunker/shelter and let the unit move on in the very same turn Larger field or angle of fire for prone MGs – right now, the muzzle can only be horizontally traversed within a very narrow angle, which means that the gunner as a whole needs to move and reposition the gun. If prone, this takes lots and lots of time as the gunner is typically crawling to the new position. The shadow of the sandbags on top of the wooden shelter is missing/broken (?) in Final Blitzkrieg Slow velocity/curved trajectory weapons should be allowed to target reverse slopes (like mortars).

- There has been a very long wait for v4.0 patch - Pre-orders were made with an expectation that a new game would be available by the end of September - BFC is famous for not communicating about plans and release dates Given the above, yes, I agree that there is plenty of ground for legitimate frustration. In my dream world, some sort of polished PR-type would be posting weekly updates. As to v4.0, Occum's Razor applies: if it were simple, it would've already been released. Is it frustrating to have some egregious TacAI behavior problems in v3.12? Yes. If v4.0 were ready, you'd have it. Or, would you rather have a version which needs another (long-delayed) patch? I don't think substituting a "bad" version with another "bad" version is the way to go. Pre-orders have a bit of a quid pro quo: you pay less, but sooner, with no product in hand. Well, that's still the case. As for BFC's communications, let's look at what has happened. BFC communicated an expected release date...and missed it. Now, expectations are dashed and there is (righteous) anger. If they had never communicated an expected release date, this would not have happened. Hence, why BFC does not communicate plans and release dates.

Great discussion, with some wonderful finds as a result! As for the link. Dr. NIcola Pignato was the dean of Italian AFV studies even back when AFV G-2 was in print in the 1970s. Concur that mislocating the photo by an entire country was a big gaffe by the translator, who had a fail safe in Frosinone, but didn't check that, either. Dust certainly is present, but the image is so sere ( also screams hot) that I really do believe the paint has bleached out considerably on these AFVs. Believe the top paragraphs at link will privide some insight on things which make OD wash out, turn colors, etc. http://www.desertarmor.com/DAK2/Painting_OD.html#15 Here is a really weathered Sherman turret top. Not even close to OD This one's ex-IDF and really shows the sun bleaching I was describing. Looks like IDF Armored Force Museum at Latrun. Early M4 with almost no add-on armor but full sand skirts. Regards, John Kettler

lol... tears.

LOL I'll do my best. ….Breaking news..... We are confused about what everyone is so confused...… - yes a parody of CNN

Tell you what on Sept 30th I'll post a note that this date is no longer viable. Good to go?

I don't think there is any need to apologize for missing a release window, but I'll repeat that it is not too much to ask for the community to be informed when that window is no longer viable.

Blackmoria's answer, unsurprisingly, is the one to pay attention to. Some more points and an illustration: Mortar vs. Howitzer vs. Field Gun - the interesting thing is where they overlap. The main practical difference, in all CM games, is how organic each asset is. In WW2 titles, US infantry have 60mm mortars at the Platoon level - this means they are available for the platoon leader to call down, and that they are going to be quick to respond to changing circumstances. 81mm mortars exist at the Company level, and most formations attach their artillery at higher levels than that, and often these larger assets are only available to Forward Observers. In CMBS (and to a less extent CMSF, but we'll have to see exactly how this is modelled in CMSF 2) , the modern US infantry rifle platoon can have embedded Forward Observers, and may also have access to small drones. The rifle company also typically has 120mm mortars, which are gettng to the point where they're no longer really "miniature artillery", since they can do some real damage. It's also notable that the US 155mm and 120mm mortars both have a limited amount of precision-guided rounds, which allow you to call in "precision" missions. In the modern titles, Forward Observers often have dedicated vehicles, which cut down their response time even further.

Thanks for refocusing this essential point! Spot on observation that every post that digresses from this only serves as a straw man for BF apologists to knock down and denigrate. They feed on this! Equally concerning is conflating kickstarter campaigns with preordered games when they are totally different things; there is likely little if no legal liability attached to kickstarter funded games, however preordered games are still a product that the customer anticipates, it's bound by contract law and if the dev fails to deliver the customer is entitled to a refund. I must state that I have enough confidence in BF to feel certain that this won't happen. And I'm more than willing to support these fantastic games with my hard earned cash present and future. But all this kind of talk wouldn't happen if BF just communicated at key times to let the community know what's going on. If the games not ready till xmas - fine, I'll drop by again then, or perhaps you can send me an email to let me know when the demo is out! Keeping the average customer happy should not be hard work, but this really is basic stuff. I hope that Steve recognises this when he surfaces and dissipates all frustrations with a simple apology (as he did in July). It's quickly accepted, but more importantly some recognition from him about this issue would vindicate our perspective, and moreover, perhaps then the 'apologists' might reflect a bit on their own ill-considered reactions which are misplaced, unkind, patronising and sometimes just verge on plain arrogance!

I can not resist sharing this photo with you! I passed close this sherman m4a2 today during a professional trip I out a little of the thread, though! here the hit decal are clearly visible

Correction - Looks like it was originally a Time Life Colour pic - Goodness what the original colours were if the print magazine page was digitally scanned...

Aloha troops, I understand the frustration on delays and also the arguments regarding customer service and business practice. But for what it is worth here is how I try to look at it. BF games are niche. BF games are boutique. BF games are possibly the boutique-iest niche-iest boutique niche in the market. But they are my market niche, our market niche, and we need to recognise how unique and invaluable this product legacy is. BF are clearly a very small group of dedicated people who develop - and keep alive - a legacy of simulated combat realism that we love. I feel lucky this still exists in the current retail environment. I'd suggest it is only through the personal passion and effort of a small number of people that we still have these lovely toys. So when I get frustrated about delays and perceptions on customer service I recognise that if pure market forces and cold business decisions were at work we'd likely not have anything like the BF games we do have. Personally, I like to support the BF crew for this reason alone. Indeed I wonder how else I can help these folks so we have these much loved toys going forward? So there is one way you might think about it. And if you agree there is some merit in this possibly overly soppy rant maybe not only stump up your $ to keep the devs alive but also tone back the criticism if only to be a bit nicer to those slaving away on our precious toys? Now. Where is that CMSF2 Demo refresh button?!? .o7 NB: for the record I don't know the devs at all

What in the h*ll are you talking about? I went on Steam and then they said go away, and then some comments were deleted, then Combat Mission, then you don't own your games, then EULA stuff...then I passed the bong. This is like a an acid trip where I didn't get any. EDITED: Yes, I know, I mixed my drug metaphors but it seemed to fit into the gibberish theme this thread evokes. EDITED: I do not condone drug use except on days ending with sunsets. EDITED: I don't do drugs. I can barely do mornings. Mord.

Love the support Guys. They gave me a link for the base game to so i could play till cmsf 2 is released. All i needed was my key for my bundle to acitvate.. that Made my day..

Thought I´d throw that in here. It´s from a german Panzergrenadier training manual as of January 1944. The given chapter (6) deals with Panzergrenadier mounted attack situations, figured worth to be trained in the training schools. Unfortunately I lack time to make the translations, but maybe someone else can extract the more interesting and revealing info?

One interesting thing about forest is that in reality, the inside of an old forest often has very few bushes, because the trees are big and block the light. So, visibility inside a "heavy forest" is often actually pretty good. It's on the outside of the forest that all the shrubs grow. In the game though, big forests are usually represented as loads of heavy forest tiles, with light forest towards the edges. One could say it should be the other way round!

And just to follow up on my post on the numbers, I do agree with Slysniper on one point: you don't need to know the exact numbers and no one should construe these tests to be an argument that you do. The numbers are just there to inform your tactical decisions, or to inform map-makers. Do you need to know that a grass AS with a tree in it provides 20% cover while a light forest AS with no tree provides 10%. No, you do not. But knowing the general relationship can make your decision tree more accurate and showing the numbers is simply a means to that end, and I would argue that this is useful to the extent that some of these relationships are not intuitive.