Elmar Bijlsma

Oops, missed the crucial sentence about them not having fired and thus having ammo. Odd.

AFAIK CMSF doesn't really care if it's belted or in a 30 rounds magazine. If a L85 equipped soldier goes down with 300 rounds on him then to best of my knowledge it's not regarded as 10x30 rounds. A L110 gunner could pick up the 300 rounds and would use it as a box and a half of 5.56.

A complete guess but are you perhaps trying to have Tiny battle sizes? It could be that the system that decides which units you get can put together a force small enough only if the infantry are pioneers.

Meh. While not against this feature as such, I'm not sure it's worth the work to do a whole weapons distribution thing. It's not what the game is about. Expand on it further and make it easier and soon every German will carry a K98 and a MP40 or MG42 halfway in to a scenario. I like it the way it works now, it's a neat little bonus.

When applying buddy aid, he should have picked up ammo that was available on those he helped. Could they have been out of ammo too?

The Syrians had objectives. You had objectives. The Syrians managed to do better on their objectives then you on yours. How is it unfair the Syrians get the win? Pre-stated objectives are all well and good, but if those HQ weren't red flag for you to possibly improvise something, you kinda deserve the minor loss. You want clearly stated objectives? So does every commander, but they are going to have to improvise as the situation requires, either to further a stated objective or the general cause. Initiative is required of every commander and the scenario designer was thoughtful to include you.

I thought the various ways of scoring are in the hands of the scenario designer to do with as they will. I may not have paid the closest of attention to the scoring at the best of times so what is fuzzy logic scoring?

Pipski, While I broadly share your views on the games peripheral features, the core simulation is rather excellent and well worth giving a try. In between the first scenario and you getting bored with the more limited features there is still PLENTY of fun to be had. PS Welcome to the forum!

Actually, computers can switch off or reboot as a result of a system error. It's pretty scary when it happens. It can be turned off with System Properties>Advanced>Start & recovery thing. (Or sumfink, I use a Dutch XP version) You might want to switch it off to see if you get a BSOD instead and what kind it is.

Yeah, don't hold your breath. A great pity though. It was one of the cool things about CMx1. You picked your forces and ran with whatever goofball purchasing decision you made. Did I bring enough AT? Enough infantry? Why didn't I buy some MGs? Good troops or lots? It were all the thrilling questions you had to ask yourself, only to see the map and recoil in horror, leaving you to cope as best you could in terrain not suited to what seemed such a clever choice moments ago. It brought a whole different level of involvement too. That tank? You weren't handed it randomly, you asked for it. And somehow, that made you care just that little bit more as you tried to justify your decision to purchase it by using it well. I did, anyway. However, there are issues. How much purchasing points for a US infantry squad? It's only a squad of infantry. But they are carrying Javelin. Modern units have such far ranging abilities that it'd be tricky to give it a value that makes sense.

Doubt it. With 2A6 and 2A4 that's one hundred tanks. I just don't see Canada deploy even more then that. So I think BFC will not bother working on yet another vehicle if they have a good rationalisation as to why they might not be deployed to Syria. Can't say I blame them, with three armies to model they have enough on their plates, even with the large overlap of gear.

The Dutch use the 2A6. Canadians have mostly 2A4 with some 2A6 on loan for service in Afghanistan. Basically up to BFC to what the Canadians would end up using in Syria '08.

Ah feck it!

Hope they get the SMLE Mk III look right in the actual game.

Can't wait to get my hands on the YPR. Though I'm not sure if my anticipation stems from using the YPR or the chance to set a few on fire!

If my wishes, whom I consider to be ways to improve the the campaign, offend you, then I'm deeply deeply sorry for having uttered them. Clearly, I have no right to express my opinion about these things. Good thing you were there to apply sarcastic derision. Clearly, it's improper to suggest CMSF can be improved upon. Forgive me?

Aside from laziness? Because you are wrong, JonS. You can fight on the same map twice and that's the whole problem. Once my artillery is done pounding enemy positions it won't be the same map. Next mission though, there are no craters, no flattened buildings, no tank hulks. And the players progress across the map? No way to track it. So, what we end up with is a poor reflection of the old Operations of CMx1 days. And no, I've not joined the darkside. I've always been on one side, and one side only. I'm unwaveringly on own side. And while I've always defended CMSF as being quite good, it falls a little short on fun for a variety of reasons.

One could argue that CM should be designed to do more then what it does today. Persistent damage would be one feature I'd love to see, allowing us to fight several battles on the same map, like the old style Operations. It may be a gameform that Steve seems to have no high regard for but whose continuity beat the current campaign by a country mile. Or unit experience. You can start a game with a platoon of Green soldiers and twenty battles later, after killing more people then Genghiz Khan they are still Green soldiers. A flaw which demotes virtual soldiers to mere tools for the task of reaching the end. This campaign offers no tangible reward a player for fighting a battle other then proceeding to the next. It will not let you defend that office block you captured earlier, take that squad of farmhands and see them through the campaign until they are battle hardened killers. If those pleasures aren't in CMSF because it wasn't what it was designed to do I can only hope that the design will be DRAMATICALLY improved for Normandy. I hate to say it but the current offering is sub par. It just isn't rewarding for a player. The only reward is letting me fight the next mission. Well big whoop if that next mission is once again so sterile, devoid of player influence or feedback. The current campaign is such an exceedingly small improvement of just playing single battles that I'm half wondering why it's there at all.

Why? This looks like a perfectly good thread. Might be use to discuss just about anything. I think this thread should remain open. Free speech relies on threads not being closed. Why are you against threads being used? Do you hate free speech?!

I've gone the other way. I used to take huge risks, but have stopped doing so. Getting objectives is pretty low on the list of priorities when fighting a battle. I try to engage the enemy on my terms and at my own pace. If I press my attack before half the time has passed and 1/3 my MG ammo is depleted, I'm rushing. Suppressive fire all the way! This sometimes sees me miss an objective or two, but on average I'm far more successful this way. The very low casualties are a big help score wise in any case but better then that, finishing with about the same amount of troops and vehicles as you start with means you can apply the whoop ass throughout the scenario instead of seeing your firepower slowly diminish as the casualties mount. The increasing overmatch in forces as time ticks by will typically see scenarios end early in total victory as the last enemies will be swatted like flies. Unless I'm playing as Syrians. Then my subordinate are pretty much fooked. Their limitations in a stand up fight sees them oft used as one shot weapons.

About halfway in the following thread. http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272293&page=2 It existed, though the question remains: when? Such a crude botch job seems more wartime emergency measure then something you'd cook up after the war with so much Sovjet material available. Then again, the markings are rather curious. I thought they used the Balkenkreuz?

I dunno, kinda doubt they have a special combined all-in-one manual. Seems rather unnecessary

It's called proof reading.

you had less trouble with it when you said: That's some judging skillz, as I only formed an opinion about you based on what you wrote, you managed to form an opinion about the entire community here. Except they aren't forcing it. And why, if it is such a big issue as you claim it is, won't you use the simple method I outlined to fix it? A lot of people are VERY happy to get their hands on the Brit module ASAP, and wouldn't have liked waiting longer for the patch to be completed too. So BFC have given it to them. People who play online can continue to do so with simple measures, or could wait a mere week. No one needs to be negatively affected by their decision. though it would seem you are. It's you who doesn't want to wait a week, you who doesn't want to fix the issue. And you think BFC is the source of your problem?

I hadn't even noticed you were new here. Welcome to the forums! Having said that, there is an attitude coming from your posts that you'd do well to drop. Anyway, you may want to re-read my first post in this thread again. All that is needed is that your opponents copy their 1.11 game in to a different directory. They can then install the module on top of one version and play you with the other. Alternatively, your are requested to wait one week for the patch. Either way, I find very little need for your dramatics. Dividing the community? Puh-lease!