Takinthebass

I suppose Bocage will be destroyable by M4 with rhino or bulldozers,and it will be possible to do some sort of holes trough them... (maybe this last thing is too much hope), but rhino and bulldozers were important in the bocage fightin'

A determinated bridge categorie will support an undetermined number of vehicles on it at same time?. I used to see at films the tanks crossing little bridges one by one, but i don't know if the new bridges will reflect such thing...

I know what you BF wants to mean with "need" and "want". And finally you are who are doing the work, so you have the right to decide about it. Anyway I wasn't suggesting any system campaing, just a pair of tools to do home campaigns easier. Just the stuff I missed in CMx1. Keep the effort. It could be a great game!!

Well, first at all if this subject one or something similar has been already proposed just forget it, but please, give a link  As CMC is already just a nice dream, we have to think about creating campaigns as old days, so if possible, to make it easier, I’d suggest just a pair of things. - Ability to edit maps at the end of scenario (very useful to keep track of damaged terrain). - Something similar to an statistic sheet (exportable to excel, or access, or whatever …), recording initial and final status of every single unit in play (casualties and fitness). Other statistics could be just curious, i.e. casualties caused, etc… Thanks!! I hope you’ll understand this crap English!!

TCP campaign?; how long is possible to take to fight a battle?; where is possible to sign as commander?... Whre are the rules of campaign?... It's sure the answer to all this questions are in the linked thread but I couldn't see them...

IMO they aren,t differents things. It´s not possible to talk about bugs without mention espectations and vice-versa. Probably we could talk about structural problems and espectations too, but at this full-of-bugs state it's not possible to know what's the real potential of a CMSF free of bugs. Of course it will be a good game, that's its a good thing, but isn't a new, and isn't a excuse neither. So, IMO, those bad reviews are valuating both the released game and the BFC policy. It's not a subjet of being a zealot or a believer, it's a subjet about being a customer buying a defective product.

Kieme(ITA) I agree with you. I mean... in this moment such a low mark it's a fair valuation of the released product, no doubt about it. When i said this it's not a finished product and can't be evaluate as it, i was expressing my complaint for this behaviour from BF.

I think 1.3 or similar it's a right evaluation. CMSF is not a finished product, so maybe can't even be evaluated. We can talk about the real potential of the game and, of course, that note must be upraised, but not at this moment.

I bet the new patch will come with the announce that ... "we are working hard on 1.05"...

As we have now relative spotting I suppose friendly fire it would be posible if the friendly unit being shooted is not saw by the firing unit. Another posibility it would be keep the frienly fire impossible between units fron same platoon/squad but possible between diferents platoons/squads...

...and a command to share ammo?. Between different squads or, at least, between teams from same squad...

Is a good suggestion. I'd suggest even a command to leave out some stuff in a vehicle. In this way, it would be possible to use Humvees o whatever to replenish ammunition at backguard and transport it to the front line (te command it would be accomplished by the crew, so its needed the option to acquire or leave out stuff for crews too...

Yes, for me is good enough the second option too, but I think is not a valid option. It's very dificult that anybody goes to publish a wargame just for multiplayer purposes. We are used to play multiplayer games (it's hard for me to imagine playing againts the IA after taste how twisted and unpredictable could be a human opponent)but they are lot of people who don't plays often (or never)against human opponents. Anyway, even all of us have played against IA when we are familiarizing with the game (i.e. right now with CM:SF) so I think a sort of IA is needed. But this is not the point of this thread. The point is what it's needed to finish the work?. Or where the project is right now, and why is not going ahead (probably is not dead at all, beacuse regularly someone write at the CMC resctricted forum).

I fear I need take some casualties before. Full squads are splitted in teams (differents teams if you choose split team, assault team or AT team, but they are (in a full squad) composed by more than three sodiers...

Well, maybe i am wrong, but I think CMC is not a product from BFC, but supported by BFC and made by an independent company named "HUNTING TANK SOFTWARE", where Hunter is. http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/index.html#top I supposse BFC gave to them the code parts they needed to design CMC as a tool compatible with CMBB, but the works had to be done by HTS. Has HTS halted the desing of CMC because they have ran out of funds? If the answer is YES (anyway I think we deserve an answer about where the project is right now and what we could hope in the future about it) i suggest a pre-oreder to get funds (good price!!, we were betting on the CMC) and finish the work. Anyway, more or less, BFC has done something similar selling CMSF in that sort of Beta state )...