rogue189

I have been a player of the CM series since the Beyond Overload days and have bought just about every title since.  I have enjoyed the modern games and I am very disappointed to hear the the expansion for BS has been shelved.  Why?  As I understand it, Battlefront did not want people thinking they were making a profit off of a war even though the game was designed before the war in Ukraine.  I understand this point, but I don't remember any complaints about the release of Shock Force when there was an active war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The game wasn't pulled when a real war in Syria happened.  What makes the Ukraine situation so special?  Is the issue simply that the setting is in Ukraine?  Could BS and the expansion simply be retitled Combat Mission Europe or something with a new setting but using the exact same maps and equipment?

I get the difference, but I can also separate fantasy from reality.  Playing Call of Duty doesn't make you a violent person.  Playing CM doesn't mean you support the war in Ukraine or condone how the war is being fought.
Steppwulf, I'm not trying to needle you and I apologize if I have been too argumentative or have not been as precise as I intend.  My ultimate point this: Battlefront developed a game before the world events changed.  As far as I am concerned, they have nothing to apologize for or be ashamed. If they want to slow or stop development of CMBS as a means of being sensitive to current events, I can respect that.  But I am also a customer and I want more of this particular product. They have already invested time, finances, and resources into development. Why thow out the baby with the bath water?  Is it possible to change the setting and create a win-win situation?

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

I have been a player of the CM series since the Beyond Overload days and have bought just about every title since.  I have enjoyed the modern games and I am very disappointed to hear the the expansion for BS has been shelved.  Why?  As I understand it, Battlefront did not want people thinking they were making a profit off of a war even though the game was designed before the war in Ukraine.  I understand this point, but I don't remember any complaints about the release of Shock Force when there was an active war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The game wasn't pulled when a real war in Syria happened.  What makes the Ukraine situation so special?  Is the issue simply that the setting is in Ukraine?  Could BS and the expansion simply be retitled Combat Mission Europe or something with a new setting but using the exact same maps and equipment?

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

I have been a player of the CM series since the Beyond Overload days and have bought just about every title since.  I have enjoyed the modern games and I am very disappointed to hear the the expansion for BS has been shelved.  Why?  As I understand it, Battlefront did not want people thinking they were making a profit off of a war even though the game was designed before the war in Ukraine.  I understand this point, but I don't remember any complaints about the release of Shock Force when there was an active war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The game wasn't pulled when a real war in Syria happened.  What makes the Ukraine situation so special?  Is the issue simply that the setting is in Ukraine?  Could BS and the expansion simply be retitled Combat Mission Europe or something with a new setting but using the exact same maps and equipment?

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

CMCW: Red Dawn (1982 - Patrick Swayze hairstyles)…now we are talking.

'Go Wolverines'

Lets face it, CMSF was the Iraq War.  Yes it was set in a hypothetical invasion of Syria, and the campaigns/scenarios did not represent the actual battles taking place.  However, the reality is that the OOB, unconventional forces, etc. were all taken from the realities being experienced in Iraq.  Basically, it was the Iraq War but not in Iraq.  If there is sensitivity about Ukraine, why do the same thing?  Just change the setting to Poland, the Baltics, or whatever eastern part of Europe you want?  You end up with the same result with a fictional Russian invasion of (fill in the blank).  This way we get to keep our modern forces and grow the core game.

I have been a player of the CM series since the Beyond Overload days and have bought just about every title since.  I have enjoyed the modern games and I am very disappointed to hear the the expansion for BS has been shelved.  Why?  As I understand it, Battlefront did not want people thinking they were making a profit off of a war even though the game was designed before the war in Ukraine.  I understand this point, but I don't remember any complaints about the release of Shock Force when there was an active war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The game wasn't pulled when a real war in Syria happened.  What makes the Ukraine situation so special?  Is the issue simply that the setting is in Ukraine?  Could BS and the expansion simply be retitled Combat Mission Europe or something with a new setting but using the exact same maps and equipment?

I get the difference, but I can also separate fantasy from reality.  Playing Call of Duty doesn't make you a violent person.  Playing CM doesn't mean you support the war in Ukraine or condone how the war is being fought.
Steppwulf, I'm not trying to needle you and I apologize if I have been too argumentative or have not been as precise as I intend.  My ultimate point this: Battlefront developed a game before the world events changed.  As far as I am concerned, they have nothing to apologize for or be ashamed. If they want to slow or stop development of CMBS as a means of being sensitive to current events, I can respect that.  But I am also a customer and I want more of this particular product. They have already invested time, finances, and resources into development. Why thow out the baby with the bath water?  Is it possible to change the setting and create a win-win situation?

I think we are missing the point of wargaming.  What would happen if Battlefront modeled the Israeli army in a fictional battle against Syria?  Does that now make the game a referendum on Israel?  Does it imply a stance by the game company?  I say no.  Playing Combat Mission is akin to playing a miniatures game in real life.  You have your armies and you fight it out.  It doesn't matter what happens in real life.  We play video games because we want to play war without the dangers of war.  Battling it out in a virtual Ukraine has nothing to do with what is happening in real life.  Has anyone looked at Command Modern Operations?  Some of the scenarios for that game are almost real time.  I just don't see a connection for developing a game and support for Ukraine or Russia.

I get the difference, but I can also separate fantasy from reality.  Playing Call of Duty doesn't make you a violent person.  Playing CM doesn't mean you support the war in Ukraine or condone how the war is being fought.
Steppwulf, I'm not trying to needle you and I apologize if I have been too argumentative or have not been as precise as I intend.  My ultimate point this: Battlefront developed a game before the world events changed.  As far as I am concerned, they have nothing to apologize for or be ashamed. If they want to slow or stop development of CMBS as a means of being sensitive to current events, I can respect that.  But I am also a customer and I want more of this particular product. They have already invested time, finances, and resources into development. Why thow out the baby with the bath water?  Is it possible to change the setting and create a win-win situation?

I get the difference, but I can also separate fantasy from reality.  Playing Call of Duty doesn't make you a violent person.  Playing CM doesn't mean you support the war in Ukraine or condone how the war is being fought.
Steppwulf, I'm not trying to needle you and I apologize if I have been too argumentative or have not been as precise as I intend.  My ultimate point this: Battlefront developed a game before the world events changed.  As far as I am concerned, they have nothing to apologize for or be ashamed. If they want to slow or stop development of CMBS as a means of being sensitive to current events, I can respect that.  But I am also a customer and I want more of this particular product. They have already invested time, finances, and resources into development. Why thow out the baby with the bath water?  Is it possible to change the setting and create a win-win situation?

I have been a player of the CM series since the Beyond Overload days and have bought just about every title since.  I have enjoyed the modern games and I am very disappointed to hear the the expansion for BS has been shelved.  Why?  As I understand it, Battlefront did not want people thinking they were making a profit off of a war even though the game was designed before the war in Ukraine.  I understand this point, but I don't remember any complaints about the release of Shock Force when there was an active war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The game wasn't pulled when a real war in Syria happened.  What makes the Ukraine situation so special?  Is the issue simply that the setting is in Ukraine?  Could BS and the expansion simply be retitled Combat Mission Europe or something with a new setting but using the exact same maps and equipment?

The patch worked!  Scratch one T-90 and one BMP!

I started playing the American campaign yesterday, but found that the game would not override the save file if I used the same file name.  I accidently started with a real-time game, but then switched to turn based.  I played the first mission for about 15 minutes and kept saving with the same file name, but when I reloaded the game, it was back to turn one of my real-time game.

I started playing the American campaign yesterday, but found that the game would not override the save file if I used the same file name.  I accidently started with a real-time game, but then switched to turn based.  I played the first mission for about 15 minutes and kept saving with the same file name, but when I reloaded the game, it was back to turn one of my real-time game.

I have been playing SF2 for awhile now and have noticed that there are briefings do not accurately reflect what is actually delivered in game.  For example in the Semper Fi Campaign mission Highway 2, the briefing (specially the tactical map) stated that I was supped to receive 60mm mortar support immediately and a CAAT elements after 10 min.  However, I didn't get any 60mm mortars and after 30 min, the CAAT had not showed up.  I also noticed in scenarios like Baker 1-1, the briefing started that you would receive a second platoon of reinforcements, but the game notes stated otherwise.  I found myself wondering, "where are they!" as I was playing.  Are these bugs?  Am I just being impatient?  Are they briefings that slipped through quality control?  Is this an attempt to say, "no plan survives contact?"  I don't mind if it is, but I just want to know if I should or should not expect additional reinforcements.

I never expected the mark mine button to be a magic mine detector.  Rather, I believed that if I moved my engineers to a suspected mine field, I could get them in position then click mark mines. My expectation was that they would spend the next minute or two looking for mines.
I did notice that my group did detect one mine, but there was nothing I could do about it.  It made me assume they only mark mines and not disarm them.  But I also noticed that the engineers don't always detect mines in their location.  I had a squad in one position of the suspected minefield for about 3 or 4 minutes.  No mine detected, so I moved on.  BOOM!  My stryker found a mine right where the engineers had just left.  Is this a game mechanic?  A bug?  or did I do something wrong?

There is only one way to settle this question.  Since the Armata has a +1 immunity to NATO weapons and a critical hit re-roll on its 20 sided die should a NATO round actually hit it, this means that there is only one possible thing that can stop it.  Battlefront will have to model Chuck Norris.  HOWEVER, since this is a video game he will have to be somewhat nerfed.  Melee attacks only with no help from Bruce Lee or Kareem Abdul Jabbar.  Jackie Chan may come in as reinforcements but he will die quickly.  No room for a stunt master in war!  Here is the scenario:
 
Mission: Winner Take All
 
Russian Forces: 1 Armata company.  Reinforcements: As many as the Russian player wants until he runs out of tanks, Russia goes broke, or they destroy the NATO forces.
 
NATO Forces: Chuck Norris.  Reinforcements: Jackie Chan with any weapon he wants.
 
Mission Objectives: Fight to the death.  The winner gets to rename Ukrane after themselves.
 
*Designer Note: Russian player MUST leave Russian insignia on tanks.  The Russians cannot loose all of their tanks then say they were never there to begin with!
 
The Challenge is made Battlefront!  You must make Chuck Norris so that NATO can fight the Armata!

Thank you!