Webwing

That´s great news Field Marshal Blücher!!!! Looking forward to them! Specially the infantry one. -

Nice work FMB! Simple, short, strait forward infantry missions. Just played it. I think the level of difficulty is just right. I didn´t save or replay anything. I really like infantry missions so this was very enjoyable. Veteran. Tactical Victory. 9 KIA, 11 WIA. Could have done better if I didn´t try to go so fast. But you never know what to expect. When are you planning to release the next one? -

Actually there will be 2 versions in the module, the 2003 version and the one with the most recent upgrades. -

Soon we will have all 3 in CM:SF. The Leo2 A4 looks a bit outdated. But the A6 is pretty awesome. -

The versions of the Scimitar and Spartan shown are the ones without slat armour. I guess that´s what you mean. Also the FV432 and Bulldog don´t have their final skins. -

----------------------------

Although some people have mentioned that the British use their weapons in a more accurate way than the US soldiers do, I´m not so sure in practice that is the case. If videos, documentaries, YouTube and books are to be trusted (and why would they not be?)than I´d say they behave pretty much the same. I just watched the Ross Kemp video again yesterday and I don´t see that marksmanship thing in there. Apart from the snipers of course. But I have no doubt the SA80 will have a different performance compared to the M4.

The L9A1, 51mm mortar is a platoon weapon. It has no bipod and very short range. Apparently it is used a lot to break down compound walls in Afghanistan more than the inderect fire role of longer range mortars currently in the game. -

I think it depends on style of play. I play mostly RT. I pause and zoom out to have an overview of the battlefield. Then I zoom in to go to different groups, giving orders for them in turn. Zoom out and un-pause. If there is a lot going on on different locations it is better to be high above. But I then pause and move to different areas that need attention and stay with this close view to see how things develop. So I do see things up close and I do see things from above. But I guess yes, you could play the whole game from far above and just see little icons on the map. -

I agree. This is up to each designer though. I guess we could have the best of both worlds if the designer included some clear summary. I usually forget that myself when making my own scenarios! I get so absorbed by the story and all that I forget to see it from the players perspective sometimes. As for the flags and stuff, I know you said you don´t mean to came back to real flags but something to have the same functionality. I´m not sure what would be the best solution for that though. One thing to remember when comparing things that were present in CMx1 games and not on CM:SF is that the first was a metaphor of a board game. Soldiers and tanks were mere placeholders, like pieces on a board game. All was abstracted, so what you saw was just a guide to what was really happening under the hood. Those thick red lines connecting waypoints, the big flags, the soldiers that could take the size of giants, etc., all that was perfect for an analogy of a board game. With CM:SF the metaphor is a real world battle field. Some things that were fine for a board game just don´t fit here anymore. Although some concepts could be kept in a different form. -

Although this is directed at PT I´d like to add 2 cents. When CMBO come out it was mostly compared to other wargames and the graphics were praised since most wargames were either hexbased or the 3d was very poor. Now CM:SF is being compared to the latest RTS and Shooters! :eek: -

A new link for video 4. http://www.mediafire.com/?umcjyykwg3m -

It´s really funny. I lost count of how many times I heard "that´s just eye candy!". It seems wargamers can´t decide what they want. Eye candy or realism? The graphics is not the strongest aspect of CM x1 or x2 when compared to current games, but it sure is the best looking wargame ever. It´s philosophy, it´s concept and calculations make it a true wargame. What it did was to bring all this from hexbased to 3D. And it did it beautifully in my opinion. It has the best of both worlds. Well, if not the best in terms of graphics, it gets very close. Comparing CMx1 to CM:SF is complicated because CMx1 did something nobody expected and went a way no one had gone before. CM:SF, follows that path. But the path now is not something that will surprise people anymore. Some expect a breakthrough with every release. This is just not realistic. As for not being able to make maps for Close Combat, well I did several myself. But it was a very complex process. You had to literally paint the whole map in Photoshop. Then you had to use user made tools to edit elevations, terrain etc. The you had to use a Hex editor to code in Assembly language each roof. A bit of a puzzle and it took some time! Talking about a more recent game which has excelent graphics: Total War series. There is an editor for terrain and to plan orders for the AI. Anyone has tried it? Terrain editor is ok but trying to make AI move and camera go into place, all with code is a bit of a nightmare and totally unsupported by the developers. Very, very limited. I guess that´s why I appreciate the editor in CM:SF so much. It does a lot and very well. And for little work compared to others around. -

Paper Tiger, You´ve done a fantastic campaign yourself so you know what you are talking about. Yes it´s not difficult. But even creating single scenarios is not difficult. But many find it complicated. Look at the number of people that actually do it. But difficult or not, like you said, there was a whole team and working with the developers. So from this logic it should have been a lot faster and better than a single guy doing it. But there were some major differences. Do you have any idea how many beta versions of the 1.10 patch there were during the processes of making the campaign? Loads and loads. This was not any patch, it introduced some big changes to the game. Also the TO&E was being tweaked and changed during this process. You make your plans, test them and then you have to re-import the core units due to some change. You balance the mission and have to change due to some changes introduced in the patch. This was being done all the time. It is very taxing on the people involved. As for having a whole team this is great but it also means you have many different ways of doing things. Every change had to be synchronized, all had to be using the same patch version. Not all were available at the same time. This is no justification for the problems but it does help understand the process. I´m not the right person to justify it anyway! When you are working with one version of the game, with a fixed TO&E and all by yourself you have total control over every aspect of the process. It does take longer but you know exactly where you are at any point. All agree the process needs to be improved though, there is no doubt about it. But to say: one guy can do it so, how come a whole team had trouble? That is too simplistic. I´ve done a camping alone and I´ve witnessed the process of doing one with a team. So it´s not like I´m just doing some guess work here. -

I think I understand what he is talking about actually. It´s somehow related to why people like QBs so much. You know the forces, you know the objectives, you know the size of the map. Fast, simple and clear. Jump into the battle and have fun. In the campaign missions and in most missions for that matter you have to read a briefing, usually 2 pages long with tiny text. It´s full of military jargon and background story. And sometimes you need to read it twice to really understand what you are supposed to do. And when were the reinforcements arriving again? I imagine this is paradise for hard core wargamers and it does immerse you in the story. But if you want to just jump into the action and have some fun this can be very tedious. Personally I usually enjoy them and actually learn quite a bit about military organization with the good briefings. But sometimes I´m for instance testing or just tired and just want to jump into the action Bigger typeface is mandatory in my opinion. Second is a summary that would go like this for example: You have 35 men, 2 M1A1s, 3 Bradleys. - Reinforcements arrive from the south east 15 min into the game: 20 men on trucks - Enemy: probably around 60 men from the Republican Guard plus a few BMPs - Objective: Occupy obj1, obj2 and obj3 - You will lose the battle even if you occupy all objectives but have too many casualties(more than 20%). I know some will think this is blasphemy but from what I read around here a lot of people are just looking to have fun, first and foremost. With a realistic military flavor of course. You can still have all the story and the briefing with all the militarily accurate language and all. But if you are in the middle of the battle and want to remember what was it you needed to do you click on the briefing button and check this summary. Simple and easy. But this is up to each mission designer to do. After all it is his mission and he either want to do it or not. But I think this way you please both the hardcore and the more casual player. From what I understand the reviewer wouldn´t have been lost if there was a summary like that. Or maybe I completely missed the point! Again!!!

And the star of the show in all it´s glory:

Personal Role Radio. http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/personal/1454.aspx

- -

Bayonet Brits kill 35 rebels OUTNUMBERED British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army’s first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago. The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down. Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara. The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway. After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills. Link to the article

Javelins are not always on tripods but sure different from US. -

First picture I see of the LLM from bellow. The contrast, the laser and the bayonet!!! -

In RL it might be. But in game every single US soldier has his trousers tucked inside their boots so if the Brits have it some other way it would help make them look different. Nothing major, of course. -

He, he. This is the open forum AFAIK. Bayonets are not modeled in the game, no secret about that. I was just curious how many pictures we all could find of them actually being used! Well, not actually being used but just fixed in place. They look great!

How many pictures of British soldiers with bayonets, fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq can you find? I´ve been pretty curious about this lately. I´ll start with two. - -

LAW-Jager, I´ve got my hands full right now but you can watch all videos on the official area of Battlefront on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Battlefrontcom -