Elmar Bijlsma

Yeah, I've got no problem with the US getting the main title to itself. It is the unfortunate reality of the market place. I'd be less understanding if the first module after the title would be more US though, like it was with CMSF. If they do go for Commonwealth, I doubt they can include more American stuff. With the plethora of equipment needed to model them, and the need to flesh out the Germans they have more then enough on their plates already.

Bit surprising that they used Hellfire. Those dudes were right in the open and far away from cover. Why not use the 30mm straight away? Do they hate the US taxpayer that much?

Cherry picking=slippery slope towards the mass market RTS games? Really? That was genuinely what you tried to say? Sometimes there just aren't enough emoticons.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87942 JonS, that is actually a really good idea. It's not quite what they had in mind for that feature but it might very well work. Thanks.

I'm still staggered that Steve honestly thinks there were so much complaints about the CMx1 QBs and the points system that it warranted getting rid of it and replacing it with the deeply flawed CMSF QBs. So there can be no misunderstanding about this, I thought the CMx1 QBs were fun and versatile. But CMSF QBs is just near enough unfit for purpose as not to matter. Problems selecting the map you want, inability to get the force type you want and ridiculous force mismatches made them a gigantic unfun waste of time. Can't remember ever hearing a good word about it. And somehow this is still the basis of the system BFC want to continue forward with? It's New Coke, dammit!

Offend people? Who gets offended when I feed troops of my own choosing in to the meatgrinder in a single player campaign?

That wouldn't happen to be a night battle, would it? No, that's not the ending. Some weird version of the campaign seems to be floating around. I used to get it too. Haven't really tried to get that far in to a campaign recently to see if it got fixed for me. You'll have to download a version of the campaign that works and start an entirely new campaign.

I don't think any of us are going to tell you just yet. But it's a local favourite. Though now that Earl Grey mentions it, it's a curious number for a tank to have. For those that aren't aware of the meaning of the numbers, it's actually quite informative. The first number gives the company, second the platoon, third the vehicle number. Thus in this case it's 8th company, 0 denoting the HQ, the second 8 is the curious one as it tells us it's the 8th vehicle in that HQ, which seems unusually large.

Why do you feel the need to correct a players behaviour? If the player is throwing the lives of his auxilary units away in favour, who gets hurt? The player likes to do it, you got paid for the game earlier and the pixeltroops aren't capable of forming an opinion on the matter one way or the other. It's the same thing I for QB forces. Apparently, we we're picking the wrong units, so the choice gets taken away. Same with the current campaign. It can't be a six month job to merely let us choose the starting force. Let us know the default suggested force at the campaign's start. And if if I choose to ignore that recommended force and replace it with only Elite King Tigers, should you really care? If that's how I get my jollies, let me As much as you cast around suggestions that we are never happy and want an entire new game added, a little freedom from this designer straight jacket would go a long way. With more freedom, everyone gets more of the game they want.

I wonder how many people here understand why that is just such an awesome picture here on these boards.

Stand alone patch is coming as soon as BFC can get them ready for you. There's some delay, usually because patches need to be localized for different publisher's versions.

To which I reply: X-COM. Game, set and the match to me, I believe? Honestly, I think everyone that wanted a completely separate campaign engine had a good cry and got over it long ago. Is it even being hinted at in this thread? But some sort of framework around the current tactical engine to allow some form of interaction with your core force is not all that much to ask for, IMO. Anything to improve what is currently little more then a sequential playing through of scenarios. *raises hand* If CMSF taught us anything, it is that patience is a virtue.

Nope. Having a British scenario with one of those in it would mean that player has to have the Marines module also in order to play it. People who only bought the British would understandably be peeved about that.

Well, I'm a big fan of RobOs campaign, which is much like Steel Panthers. The player picks his force and depending on how well or bad he does the player receives influence with which he can "buy" replacements, or improve his force loadout. People who'd use that system for insanely unrealistic OOBs (like me) can get their jollies, and those that desire a more realistic ToE (also me) can do so to. Let the player shape the way the campaign plays out more. It's his campaign, after all.

And here is me thinking the raison d'être of this forum was to share opinions. It's that or a very cunning ploy to keep opinionated arseholes off the streets. Or are you thinking that he gave the wrong opinion? Then come out and say so.

I hope you don't spend too much time on 1. It's a system that in CMSF hasn't shown to be all that promising in the first place and I reckon even a tarted up version isn't going to win any popularity prizes. As for the mega tiles, I'm surprised to be feeling pretty ambivalent about it. Though working fine in such golden oldies as X-COM I've grown rather attached to hand drawn map. If you could allow me to pick my own maps I'd be much happier already. For me, it's pretty much all about the picking of units. Everything else is secondary. 1. Why on Earth not? Because we'd squabble about it? Bad news Steve, us lot are going to squabble about something. Having us squabble over something as trivial as the points a specific unit should be worth is pretty much be a win for you guys! Really, what's bad about points? Yes, someone will be staying up late working out the points rationale. Though! The system worked and was well liked. Except for a brief period of M8 GMC spamming, i can't recall there was ever a big deal made about points. Without points, what are you going to do? Any system you do come up with had better allow me to agonize on whether I take along the Crack King Tiger or a platoon of Green Pz IVG 2. Fair enough. Random maps are overrated. Big, big user of them for RobOs campaign system but they rarely looked realistic. Especially with the amount of detail that can be added in CMx2 I can see how it's likely to be looking even worse then before.

I may already be saying more then I should at this point by stating that it was a very deliberate omission of mine.

CC2, now that was a great game in it's day. I'm done playing these days but gosh wasn't that campaign fun. I'd kill to have that campaign with the CMx2 engine. Sadly, BFC haven't shown much interest in a elaborate campaign game. They don't believe it will generate many additional sales compared to the work required. If they did make one, I might never see daylight again. PS CC4 wasn't all that great, and I believe CC5 was pretty much more of that except in Normandy. No matter how many losses you suffered or inflicted, the next time two formations would fight they would have the same line-up of units. No customizing of task forces or anything!

There is no question that King Tigers saw action in Normandy. I believe some from Schwere Panzerabteilung 503? But it would seem that they were opposite the British sector until the collapse of the Germans in Normandy. Well, that's one way to guarantee a commonwealth module sells well: Including the KT with it! Aww! I get myself distracted while typing and then what happens... Cuirassier beats me to the punch. It's not fair, I tell you!

Well, the game is set in Syria so any expectation of terrain other then Syria is perhaps not entirely fair. There are mods around that give the game a Central/NW Europe look, though the terrain data etc remain the same. However, you might be happy to hear then the next module will feature German and Canadian forces. Welcome to forums by the way.

Achilles saw action in Normandy, though I wouldn't know if the Churchill XI did. As I understand it the Mk XI was more or less upgrade of an the older Mk V to the standards of the newer Mk VII. Don't think the Mk XI had anything new as such so for CM:N it may be disregarded even if it was deployed in time for the Normandy campaign

Thing is, we are two years down the line now, and not only do we not have the QB system almost all of us wanted, the system we do have is still not very good at the things it is designed to do.

There is also a risk in regard to media coverage. Get civvies portrayed in this game and you are just one idiot away from a media ****storm in which you are holding a "game where you get points for killing as many civilians as you can." Not like the media have a rather poor track record in this. You can play Grand Theft Auto without killing more then a handful of thugs who it's been made very clear are thoroughly bad dudes. What happened was the media claiming you score points for killing pedestrians and raping prostitutes or somesuch. Or Mass Effect: A glimpse of side boob in a love scene was suddenly made out to be full frontal hardcore pr0n. Allow civilians to be killed and BFC is a coin toss away from being vilified in the media.

What might be happening is confusion due to ammo type. The L96A1 uses 7.62 ammo and will use re-fills of this type. The L115a3 fires .338 Lapua of which there is none to be had in CMSF. So if you grabbed some 7.62 out of the back for the team equipped with the latter, the second ammo bar does go up, but it won't help you fire that rifle. Makes you wish for a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in regards to large rifle bullets. It goes through life as 7.62 but can sneakily be .338 if it is called for.

According to wiki: Different smoke launchers, different night vision periscope for the driver, FN MAG instead of MG3 (co-ax and turret mount) and different radios. Pretty minor stuff really. Fennek differs more, atleast in capability. Seems the Germans opted for arming them with GMG and MG3 (no .50?) while the Dutch went for the .50. The Dutch bought a handful of GMGs for Afghanistan but I'm not sure which vehicles they got mounted on. I don't think the Dutch use MAGs though I recall seeing a promotional with a Fennek so equipped.