Elmar Bijlsma

Not going to get fixed. It's because the AI doesn't know how to deal with this. It sit at the bottom of a tall building not knowing what to do next. Not too big a deal anyway, it's been this way in CMx1 too. As you point out, you hadn't noticed. The times this comes up should be relatively small.

Huh! Hadn't thought they'd share a language (Urdu) with the Afghans. Now that is a BIG advantage.

You aren't a big Top Gear fan, are you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk6vsb77xk If anything, their capacity to withstand damage is undermodelled. I wonder, did someone ever mod the pickup to look like the one from Top Gear? That'd be a laugh.

I would hate to see a cross between CMx1 and CMx2 QBs. The best of both worlds? No thanks, not when one of the worlds goes begging for orbital bombardment! I genuinely can't think of a feature that the CMSF QB system could bring to the table.

Well, I was thinking of using my lottery win for that. But I guess that if you use yours, I have my winnings free for re-commissioning Firefly. *dreams on* Hmmmm... Summer Glau... *sigh*

Just so you know, you are one lottery win away from making X-COMbat Mission.

Except that for tanks it's still required to manually load the flexible MGs. This on account of tank crew members getting shot reloading an entirely secondary weapon. And long may this continue.

I'd eyeball the firer about this error. Considering their call for SPLASH was late, I think they too were counting on that round travelling further then it did.

The complexity of the maps prevent random maps. The computer wouldn't be able to make halfway decent maps. There's been talk of maps constructed of super tiles. Tiles of pre-made terrain that are put together to have a random map. Like X-COM did it. I don't think it'll be in for CM:N. The QBs are a bit of a mystery. Happily, we do know the current system will be abandoned. But not a return to the old points system either. But something quite like it, though what that entails is anyone's guess.

A micro-chip implanted in your skull so that you can still play CM while spending quality time playing more CM?

I'm not sure if that's the setting. Probably 1:1 at work, for me at least. In CMx1 the accusing finger of corpses littering the field is rarer. A 12 man squad down to it's last man doesn't leave a corpse. In CMx2 a 12 man squad merely halved in strength already has six reminders of how badly you failed.

Depends if we are talking about multiplayer. RT multiplayer can get pretty overwhelming, though it's mitigated by the fact that the opponent is equally limited. but again, I think the experience differs more due to the players preference then scenario design. People who get easily overwhelmed by RT multi-player are probably shunning it regardless of scenario design. For those more comfortable with this mode I reckon there is a pretty sizeable difference. Only so much you can do at once compared to WEGO, so plans get simplified, and mostly depend on having one iron in the fire at any given time. Atleast, that's been my experience. In solitaire games like the one linked to, the pause function frees up the player to play however he wants and the mode of play is not that relevant. For my part, I'm less prone to complicated orders in Real Time, even though I'm a big Pause user. But then again, I tend to be pretty 'seat of the pants' in style even in WEGO. So even in WEGO, what you would think would promote a more braniac approach to play, I myself go with the gut instinct nine out of ten times. Is there a difference? For most people there almost certainly is. But where the difference lies and how big it is would seem to me to entirely up to the habits of the player in question.

I think it's a bridge too far to assume that the difference in experience is due to Real Time v Turn Based. If there's one thing I've learned in wargames is that there are many ways to skin a cat. And each approach will result in a different experience. Half the joy in a scenario is doing something batpoop insane that no-one could possibly see coming. That's not to say RT doesn't play differently then TB. But I reckon it's pretty meaningless. A label on how the game is tested would be of very marginal value. Might as well put in a warning that goes: It tells you nothing about the fun to be had.

Until someone more well versed comes along: Could it be you bought the Paradox version of the game but installed a Battlefront Patch?

I thought it was a perfectly dreadful round, really. Yorick ran virtually unopposed, and the lack of serious competition exposed the flaws I felt Fiefdom always had. Caster attackers are crazy powerful and there is no defence at all against them. And my old complaint, that there is entirely too much protection for the gold and resources of players. Thus one must either utterly destroy rivals or leave them alone. At least previous rounds I played (seems like I've missed a fair few) one side was balanced out by the other, and there was a generally a limit to the destruction before the enemy had to divert itself to another task. Now Yorick had all the unopposed strength to deal near unlimited destruction and not the style to refrain from doing it. Which explains the severe kicking I received. Despite keeping myself to myself and not committing heinous crimes against anyone, towards the end I as an indie player had pretty much everything demolished. I miss the old days were it was still worth cracking open a competitive fiefdom and stealing everything not nailed down, without inflicting too much lasting harm.

It may be that the night scenarios you play might be set during full moon. If they are too light for you, you could change the date of the scenario to something else in the editor. Ironically, designers often set their missions in full moon situation partially because. unless you play in a fully darkened room, playing a CMSF night mission is practically impossible because it's too dark! I can hardly see what I'm doing unless I play night missions when it's night IRL. Still hoping BFC come up with a toggle to adjust the displayed darkness of night time.

Like I said earlier, the campaign is not put together by those that do the programming. So it's a relatively marginal difference between including it or not. I get the strong impression that you do not value campaigns in the first place so wouldn't accept any delay whatsoever. But there are plenty who do enjoy them very much. I think the inconvenience of you waiting a few weeks is far outstripped by the value it adds to those that do like the campaigns. PS Big kudos to those that put the scenarios and campaigns together. I don't think many people know that it's a labour of love done by volunteers.

I see no reason why BFC should cater to the impatient at the cost of release versions not having the amount of features it should have. Reviewers (and I suspect many gamers) typically give a game one shot, and that's in the weeks surrounding the release. Including major features after that time-window will impact the reviews negatively. You can't review what isn't there yet. The development of the game and the campaign runs parallel. While some things would be redone as some feature got added/adjusted, it mostly meant tweaking the campaign mission being made, a relatively minor task compared to the mammoth task that is involved in creating a good scenario from scratch. Only beginning the campaign as the game is done will set that feature back for months. Whereas dealing with a last minute campaign FUBAR (if there even is one) would like take a week or two extra when done parallel. Besides, BFC are never quite done developing the core engine. So there isn't even ever a time where Charles can lean back and say "Finished!" and set the scenario designers to work.

Sound detection hasn't been added, sadly. I do miss it, though the times that it's problematic is next to nil. If you get surprised in such a way on any regular basis, you are doing it wrong. Get eyes on where you are going to fight before ever you move there. From reading the forums the "going out the wrong door" still happens, but very infrequently these days. TBH, I hardly ever had it happen to me, and then mostly user or scenario designer error. Only once did I notice a unit taking a door other then the obvious one without a clear causation. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

A 2 ft rock is pretty useful cover. But yeah, it is terrain that gives more protection then grass in the shape of a modifier. Exact values aren't known, I think.

Nonetheless, we will ignore what he said.

Yup, it's a separate game set in the 80s. So even though it uses the CMX2 game engine it will not be compatible with Shock Force. So no pitting units from CMSF against Muhajideen. It's been discussed here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87722

A conventional war against Syria is not the same as COIN operations where there is no expectation of enemy armour. IIRC the loadout is straight out of the textbook loadouts. If facing enemy armour is to be expected then it's only natural the AP round gets favoured above a HE round. Run out of HE and one would just ply the target with MG fire instead. No problem. If on the other hand you run out of AP and are then confronted with armour: problem. Hence you'd be carrying significantly more AP then HE. *edit* Not that it isn't galling to see 30mm HE being fired at armoured targets instead of the plentiful AP.

But if you corrected it, how could we mock you? So what were you shooting for; Take? Tape? Taekwondo?

Secondary damage has always been under modelled. Except for tracks, no direct hit=no damage