Elmar Bijlsma

Ah, Ye Olde printed manual. Especially in games like CM I treasure them greatly. But I hardly ever read them. Not reading read them. A handful of quick consultations at most. Yet I would hate to do without it. There is an undefinable niceness about them. It makes a game purchase more tangible. For truly fine manuals, there's the LucasArts sims and of course MicroProse. Now those were epic manuals. Not only read those cover to cover, but re-read them.

What I was trying to get across was that I am dissatisfied with the current system and hearing the rationalization again will neither sway me or increase my enjoyment. It's their call because it's their game, sure.

Oh, yes, that's a good one. Get a custom hotkey.txt. Default is rubbish.

People complained about the Operations because they got played a lot, and had a lot of issues. But people still played them. They liked them. I cannot be persuaded that the group of people that liked the current campaigns is larger then the people that liked the Operations. You cannot be persuaded to the contrary. I think with that basis for discussion I'd do well not to discuss the current situation, it being as futile as it is aggravating. One last thing . Speaking of this amazing new l33t campaign system that's so awesome: when are you going to let me progress past Night Stalkers? It's been three years. Wouldn't happen to have a spare programmer for that, would you?

Welcome back. Well, expect spotting to be trickier. No more automatic frontline wide smackdown on an ATG that opens up. Excellent control over very lethal artillery and you better keep moving because the AI is more handy with it now too. Also, you are likely to be more adverse to casualties as bodies now litter the battlefield like so many accusing fingers. And craptastic QBs.

This thread has the capacity to make me unhappy. Steve, I don't care, I really just don't care about what you think was wrong with operations. I acknowledge it was a fair bit. I liked it for what it was. It somehow, against the odds, pushed my buttons. The current campaigns, do not. They do not come close to pushing my buttons. You can argue the point all you want, but I cannot be made to love this sterile excuse for a campaign. I like the tactical game, but what has been built around it does not satisfy me. It's even easier to be dissatisfied with it as I was fairly satisfied with it before. But the random maps are gone, the quick battles are an embarrassment and the campaigns are (for all the outstanding quality of the individual scenarios contained therein) cold and loveless. You can keep going on and on about the design choices you made but I as a customer am telling you, it's not enough. Significant improvements to all those points have seemingly been kicked in to the long grass, and let me tell you, I'll not be your customer for very much longer if you don't start working on it sooner then later. Pardon the drama.

Say, I've been wondering, will our current freedom to pitch anyone against anyone continue in Normandy? What with historical sensitivities not every combo might go down well.

I'm interested to hear what progress has been made to make the current campaign less sterile and more like a campaign. Any news? The current Core Forces treatment make me think of a Penn and Teller act. Things appear and disappear seemingly at random in CMSF campaigns. Will we at least get clear plastic cups this time?

Hehe, my initial feelings were much the same. I thought CMx1 PBEM was bafflingly old fashioned at first. Until I started playing it and the ability to play turns in my own time actually grew on me. And my play style much improved. In TCP play and even rapid return PBEM I was prone to impulsive tank charges (and on one embarrassing occasion even a StuG rush!) whereas a PBEM with a leisurely pace would be a more carefully considered affair. Some time to mull things over did me the world of good. And much of this mulling over you could do away from the computer. I'm still a seat of the pants player at heart. I'll not spend hours observing the terrain and studying every option very carefully, no min-maxing of every order or for hours on end. Oh, the many strategies thought up under the shower, at work or doing the grocery run. The amount of fun could really be stretched out. I've spend entire workdays being happy because I knew that I really humbugged my opponent in the turn I sent just before leaving the house. Eight hours of enjoyment out of a single turn... can't beat that with real time play! I prefer Real Time while wailing on the AI, but I finds it can quickly become too stressful to do it multi-player. No pause means I feel under the gun for the entire duration. That really needs to be made more attractive. Out of the current possibilities PBEM is pretty much the only way I'd consider playing CMSF. But I don't really understand GunzAbeam's beef. There's several clubs where he can get his multi-player jollies, even RT. So why do you feel it's going to waste if you like RT so much?

It's not an acronym. It's referring to the simultaneous nature of the turn. "We go" as in all sides taking their turn at the same time. As opposed to the sequential "I go, you go (IGOUGO)".

Modern Korea, yet more Kill-o-Zap warfare? Nah, it was fun for a bit but it's getting old. I'd rather have Korea War 1.0. Pattons, Centurions and what have you... yum! And it was a UN mission, so BFC could make modules until they all own Ferraris.

From the http://www.battlefront.com Sure seems a smart choice to hire another brain.

We have a chat room? I thought that one went the way of the dodo years back. But could we dial down the hysteria? "Battlefront chat room virus" is a rather damaging thread title whereas I'm pretty sure it was merely an alert about Java or some such asking for access. At the very least insert a question mark.

No announcement like that has been made that I know of. But then, some of the signs aren't that great. Like the absence of a forum, it's actual name or the scarcity of meaty bones and screens. I know BFC like to keep their cards close their chests, but FFS it's mid July and we are still waiting two CM releases planned for release before Normandy.

2011 is beginning to loom, yeah.

Hah! I had the exact same thoughts about that. AS I understand it for each M249 they plan to replace they will use two M27s while retaining the M249s to be used at discretion. I can predict with a near 100% certainty how that's going to work out. M249s will be alongside the M27 until they wear out. It all strikes me as the USMC trying to get the HK416 to have a foot in the door for future full replacement. The utility of such weapons as true automatic support weapons is so dubious that it would be hard to believe that they are completely sincere about the M27 being the new SAW.

No, you aren't wrong. The SA80 family had some rather large amount of issues initially. Which is why I mentioned the L85A2 quite deliberately. Mind you, even the initial run could compare favourably with the M4 during testing, iirc. I can well imagine that the SAS preferred the ARs at the time because they had lots of cool gear that could be attached, UGLs not the least of it. I know I'm kicking against an American cultural icon here, but the AR 15 designs are outdated and kinda crappy to what's available now, be it bullpup or conventional.

Eh? Are you perhaps thinking of the L86A2? Because any force equipped with AR 15 would probably fall on their knees and thank FSM for the L85A2. As for it being cancelled, more to do with the rather large supply of M-4/M-16 spare parts, maintenance kits etc currently held by the US armed forces, and the cost of relacing it. Pretty much all the big contenders are still struggling to break this AR-15 addiction. HK 416, XM-8 and SCAR (and the L85A2 for that matter) have in trails proven to be superior to the M4/16 series time and again but the US army is seeking some vague revolutionary leap in weapons technology before they commit to cleaning out their inventory. Which means the richest army in the world is still dragging around a gun that is average to poor.

I thought this issue had already been resolved?

I have my browser all set up so I can comfortably read text. Text that isn't formatted like this.

That's not really a serious alternative to an AI that's even quasi competent in QBs. Or QB force selection. Luckily BFC seems to think so too, at least in the case of the latter.

What is also important to mention is that unlike in CMx1 where the planes roamed at random and might just attack anything, in CMSF you'll be able to call them in on a certain area or a specific target. So while we lost the shadow and the active AA fire, we gained considerable control over it. It will be interesting to see what remains of that control in 1944.

Yup. QBs. i hope the new system won't be too restrictive in the odd ball forces I can choose. And movement while in combat. In CMSF it's just too lethal. I look forward to charging Stuarts or armoured cars across the battlefield and not face immediate and certain death.

Meh. I don't care for the how or why. For many years now I'm seeing combat footage with the GPMG used up front by infantry foot patrols. I want to see in CM that which I'm seeing in nearly every bit of footage. Currently the Brits in CMSF are underusing the GPMG dramatically compared to their real life counterpart. If there's no TOE that allows the wider use of GPMGs that find some other way to do it. Because I, and I reckon a fair number of others, don't really care about what the TOE says. It should not overrule what is clearly fairly common practise.

You yourself describe the use of Move. It's for travelling long distances without tiring troops. If you aren't expecting combat, this will make your units be useful once they get where you need them.