scottie

Campaigns and campaign map. (I know its never going to happen due to the complexity though , we have been over this a few times over the years)

Throwing in my 2 cents, been around long enough to have an opinion on this which is probably against the grain of the fan-boys, sorry lads. What attracted me to the original CM back in 2004 was the 3D nature of the simulation and all the benefits the gave us over the 2D top down model we call came from. It was a ground breaking experience that continued into CMx2 engine in the form of CMBN first. But since then I think there has been a lack of innovation in my opinion. There is not enough different about the other WW2 titles if you already own CMBN (plus upgrades/ all modules). Now I completely understand BF are a small development team and this is a niche market, and as such users like niche features as discussed in this thread already. But these niche features take development time and come at the expense of innovation in other areas. They please the dedicated followers of course and these are the most vocal voices on this forum, but they do not attract a more general audience to purchase additional products, people like me. I have no need to purchase CMFI, CMFB, CMRT because the offer me the same functionality and options when managing small/medium unit tactics, they look different in terms of environment and units type for sure but its not enough of a unique selling point to make a purchase worthwhile. Agree that Operations mission feel a bit detached from each other, more could be done to offer continuity support between missions and to allow the mod community to get creative with Operations (Devils Decent being the best example to date IMO). Completely understand why we will never see a campaign map (from the 100s of arguments about this over the last 15 years!!!). The editor is an amazing feature in my opinion and keeps me playing either with community scenarios or creating my own. On an ending note CMx2 does offer something pretty unique in the market, sure its not perfect but find me something better ? ... not sure there is at the moment. My 2p. Scott

@Steve. Thanks for the info. Its taken me a few hours of figuring out but I successfully purchased / deployed for CMBN: 3.12 4.0 battle pack vehicle pack Its easier certainly but still a lot of leg work. I do appreciate your help though. All the best. Scott

I agree the whole thing is very confusing I understand the Battlefront commercial model, I dont have an issue with it to be clear. I think the problem is making it easier for customers to engage with said commercial model. The amount of research a user must do is prohibitive to making an update or content purchase ... especially compared to steam DLC as an example. Not suggesting Steam is an option ( I remember a post a decade ago about BF deciding it was not for them ) but maybe some form of proprietary application to help users upgrade and purchase additional content , even automate it on validated purchases. The entire thing is a mess at the moment IMO. Thank you. Scott

Been a BF customer since 2004 but avoided purchasing since CMBN modules simply because I am so utterly confused by the system of patches , upgrades , modules , battle packs. Its an absolute minefield sorry BF from a non-technical consumer point of view. Really frustrated.

Great to see development is ongoing but my word your upgrades and patches and add-ons create a very confusing picture for the consumer especially having been away for a wee while. Its quiet daunting. All the best Scott

I think the CMBO "Devil's Descent" is the perfect example of one of the strengths of this game. Small unit tactics over multiple linked scenarios. I keep a spreadsheet of squad head count when I play it for added management fun including leader changes. I want to create an affinity with the company I command within the wonderful realism environment that CMx2 creates (as opposed to COH point and click rubbish). I understand from previous and multiple discussions over the years a campaign map is never going to happen, that's fine if its not worth the investment BF. But more support for linked maps (in terms of persisting destruction for example) would help bridge the gap between linked scenarios (and anything more creative). I too struggle to play large maps in terms of "fun" levels of manageability and system performance issues. Desperately want to get into this game again but finding it hard to get the motivation. Posted about this a year ago , all the new modules are just too darn similar for me sorry (IMO) ... prefer features not 20 version of the same tank with different branding ....

"small campaigns" that would be nice ..... how about a campaign map ..... ..... i know i know , never going to happen.

Just spotted this threat. Very interested. I understand the effort BF as a small developer puts into the modules but for me personally (IMO) I am finding it difficult to play these days. Additional CMx2 WW2 titles for me are all too similar (understanding many users love the addition of different vehicles and TOCs each module provides). An operational game sounds incredible if it can be made to work.

Yip did that lots with CMx2 vanilla. Thankful BF allows you to do that, they have definitely got that right ! fantastic feature. That is a very going point ! Playing the human element is what gives me a buzz in RO2. Will give it a go ideally against a newbie as I aint that good.

Sorry forgot about this thread and thanks for the reply. I did pose my initial question honestly , was not a dig at the software offering just how I felt at the time. Check the date I joined this forum , been playing BF CM products for more that a decade , know them inside out. CMAK along with ETW probably represent the most time I had every spend with an application. After analysing my post I think my problem is recent exposure to R02 (no bots) logging almost 1000 hours. Completely different game but I have found my attention span for strategy less than it use to be .... not CMx2 fault obviously ! RO2 is the first FPS i have played in almost 15 years and specifically selected that product on recommendation from this forum for its realism element. Ok its a totally different concept from CM , I guess i will come back to CM at some point.

Is it just me or does the addition of new equipment (TOE, nations , vehicles, etc) via the modules not add much to this game ? Honestly strike me down if i'm wrong , its just I have played the commonwealth module for maybe 2 hours since purchase months ago and I just keep getting bored Sure 2.0 added some features, armour cover arc is great. I admit I have not looked into this in too much detail but on the face of it the modules to date seem to be more about adding new equipment and formations rather than new features into the software. Maybe that's more important for most of you , just doesn't add too much to the game for me. I maybe alone but I am finding it hard to have sustained interest on CMx2 2.0 for any length of time these days. I need more of a link between battles in a campaign. Everything feels very detached All IMO. Scott

$5 bundled with Market Garden ? ---SOLD--- Whats the ETA on MG (been a while since i have looked sorry)

LOL sorry , had to laugh at that too (no offence intended Togi) being involved in the dev world too there is no way its that simple. Personally I am on the fence on the $10 issue , agree BF need to be paid for their efforts but its difficult as a consumer to get use to paying for what I would class as minor features.

very very interesting indeed. Thanks for posting.