aus3620

The first thing I do with a new game is turn off the music and then the background sound. Managed the first but is there an option to mute the background sound in CMCW? The sound option appears to mute everything. Thx

Lot of interesting comments in the thread and morphing into a game review. So if I may ... CMx2 single player is a bit meh, but as a multiplayer WEGO game at this scale it is at the top of the pile (a pile of one maybe). Being able to review the turn is a priceless feature. Nothing else quite like it. Glad to see that Flashpoint Campaign Red Storm got a mention. Different scale and timeframe but another dose of WEGO goodness. Being a gaming dinosaur, it is hard to break the turn-based gaming habit. Of course, tried the Close Combat series but it just did not do it for me as a strategy and tactics game. The first RTS that I liked was the CMANO series. The timescale of naval/air combat was a good fit for RTS. On a naval theme, also liked Cold Waters and Atlantic Fleet. I wanted to like Steel Division Normandy 44 but just too much going on and a bit of a clickfest, a la Close Combat series. As mentioned in the thread, the biggie in the comparison stakes is Graviteam. Played Op Star for 20 minutes – seemed so foreign, just could not get my head around it. Gave Graviteam a second chance with Tank Warfare: Tunisia 43 (TWT43). First time around it was just as baffling as Op Star. Decided to have a second punt at it and managed to figure it out. As a WW2 SP I think it is brilliant. The big hurdle is to put aside your CMx2 habits and concepts (not as easy as you think after hundreds if not thousands of hours). In comparison, CMx2 is focused at a lower level of command, although you can direct squads in TWT43. There are fewer clicks per TWT43 scenario v CMx2 because of this scale difference. The big downside is the learning curve is the lack of suitable documentation. I have 100 hours on it and still haven’t figured out all the bells and whistles. Also means I have not stumbled onto some of the criticisms other posters have mentioned. In many ways, Graviteam and BF have different games and that is why they can survive in the same game space.

It would be nice to have a build-in H2HH function.

When CMx2 was introduced there was a wail of "too complex" from the peanut gallery. Most of us here today would not make that claim. Sure, there is a CMx2 learning curve and let's face it, if you want sophistication, that means more to learn initially. It is a big question for BF with CMx3. Outside of it being WEGO, it is hard to predict which way BF will go. If you were to design CMx3 would you: build a more sophisticated CMx2 - more control over individual unit behaviour, more functions, grouping units as a feature, similar map scale - of course, more to learn. Larger maps with more AI control of sub-units and less control by players? - maybe a 2025 CMx1 Multi-layer game - Operational layer where players make big picture moves of Bn/Coy, then break down to unit level play. With the benefit of hindsight, CMx2 was a logical move from CMx1 - would have felt brave at the time! Any opinions out there on the structure of CMx3?

I have suggested that multiplayer/WEGO should be considered at the Graviteam forums, as have others. Although CMx2 is a similar scale, Mius/Tunisia are a different take again, that works very well once you get over the learning curve. Far superior to the Eugen offerings IMHO. A bit off topic I concede, but RTS multiplayer is "appointment" gaming. Turn based is do the turn when you have the time. I would have thought a better option in today's busy world. It is hard enough getting a good WEGO opponent let alone someone for an appointment style game. I did say "inspired" by Mius and I'll add now Tunisia 43. Not to just slap WEGO on top. Has all the bells and whistles "by and large" mentioned in this thread but in the Graviteam format. I note some speak of AI plans, this is a key feature of Graviteam WW2 games. Not saying BF should copy their model either - but they could build on it! BTW the Graviteam model has fewer clicks than CMx2 - not saying BF should aim for that either! I am sure BF would be well aware of the offerings in their game space and what it is that their supporters appreciate. Lastly, Graviteam have mentioned RTS multiplayer but it is not high on their list. They claim multiplayer does not have a large enough following to justify the work. For the "appointment" reason I mentioned previously I think this is probably true. FPS suits appointment gaming but I don't think our interest does. Just as CMx2 was not CMx1 with better graphics, CMx next has to be another, WEGO, leap forward - I hope.

CMx3 - Be inspired by Graviteam Tank Warfare - Mius Front, but add WEGO capability.

I have noticed in CMFB infantry can swim across waterways in a blizzard, in full gear, and still fire their weapons and function, seemingly, without any detriment once reaching the far bank. Does anyone know if there is a fatigue penalty (at least) for swimming in freezing rivers? Appreciate these superhuman feats were accomplished during the war but not without casualty or degradation of performance.

Some interesting ideas there WW65. Obviously, Battlefront have carved a slither of the military games market for themselves and the financial return reflects this. To have even 5% of ARMA's income would be a dream for them I presume. How to expand sales seems to be a perennial issue for BF - once again lack of funds or lack of vision, or both. Or BF is happy with the staus quo for a range of reasons. A very small team means glacial progress (if BF history is anything to go by). So the idea of opening up aspects to the community, at first blush, would seem to be a good idea. Not sure if the BF demographic is into that, but worth consideration. BF have alluded to CMx-next, maybe in that iteration community input will be considered. IMHO, BF implementation of the WEGO system is excellent and the games provide many hours of entertainment and variation. I like the look of modern RTS games but, for my taste, the play-ability is not there. Appreciate we have gone a bit off course from the OP. But I think the point we are trying to make is that BF have a very narrow financial/management approach and variation, such as a Barbarossa series, is out of the question currently. Those into sim car racing may remember rFactor 2 history. It was almost moribund before taken over by new management and a more aggressive production/development cycle was implemented.

If he´d be sent sent to an acting school Hollywood would have fast tracked to the disaster it is today!

In short, you can install it almost anywhere. In my documents folder I have a directory called Battlefront/CMH and I installed it there. Download the CMH zip to your Downloads directory. Double click the cm-helper-1.7.5.zip file, direct it to your selected directory, i.e., /Battlefront/CMH. (of course, you need a copy of Winzip or similar to extract zip files). If you have any other issues it will be due to security rules on your PC. In your Dropbox account create a directory called Battlefront and create sub-directory's there for the various matches you have going e.g. WWolf65vsFred. In CMH you will have to direct the Incoming files dialogue to the Dropbox Battlefront/sub-directory. When you start new PBEM games, remember to copy the folder into your Dropbox Battlefront directory.

I would caution against being too critical or morally aloof from the rank and file axis citizens of the time. IMHO the lesson of this time is that even a good, hard working, intelligent, largely Christian population can be swept up in the emotion and propaganda of the day to commit acts, in good faith, that are unacceptable to today's western liberal world - although the western world cannot claim innocence in this regard. This chap was 17-19 years old, his worldview would have been one not too dissimilar to our own at such an age re defending country and folk. If you are interested in examining the motivations of ordinary people in extraordinary situations in WW2, have a look at: Ordinary Men by Christopher R. Browning In our age, most people seem unable to push against the power of "Political Correctness", let alone the over-whelming power of the Nazi's on the average citizen.

Still happening with CMBN!

Updated to v401 and now the game does not boot - get initial black screen then fails. Checking the CMBN directory only have v400 and v401brz files in the data directory. Presume something has gone bellyup during the update and have to reinstall everything - have all modules. But will the v4.01 update repeat the fail? DELETE Previous transmision! Installed v4.00 (which updated back to v1.0), then reapplied v401 and game now boots.

Did a quick test of pak40 75mm movement on a variety of Ground1 surfaces. Deployed - 1AS/min Undeployed - 2AS/min The idea of packing, moving and redeploying is unusable in-game. Deployment 2.2 mins, Pack up 4.4 mins - 7 mins plus movement time.

Appreciate the speed of movt issue, although improved from early on it is still a point for discussion. Do all the 75mm and less ATG move at 1AS/min (turn)? Would 2AS be too fast? I have tried the shoot and hide idea with the ATG (current version) but you rarely get out of mortar/small arms range (H2H). I also think they are too easily spotted. I'm certainly not against the argument that smaller ATG advantages are under-modelled (concealment/size) and disadvantages over-modelled (man handled movt). For the purpose of argument we could disregard the 88mm, it is obviously an outlier.