Sgt Joch

To each his own I guess, I have been playing CMSF regularly since 2007 and find the UI easy to work with. In fact, when I fired up CMBN beta and realized BFC had changed the hotkeys, my first reaction was: WTF!?!, my second was to copy in the CMSF hotkeys. I like being able to use my left hand to control the viewpoints with the QWEASDZX keys, use the space bar to select orders 90%+ of the time and use the mouse in my right hand to select units and give movement/targeting orders.

If you play the game as a real commander would, namely take your time to scout out enemy positions, stay under cover, use artillery/AFV direct fire to root out enemy positions, you can advance with minimal casualties...however that does not make for an exciting video AAR since your troops will spend most of their time sitting around waiting.

Most mid-range setups should work fine. My system is no longer top of the line: Intel Q9550 (2.83 ghz), Gyga P35-DS3R, ATI radeon 4890, Dell 27" widescreen monitor @ 1920x1200, 8 g. DDR2 @800, 1tb WD Caviar black HD, X-Fi Fatal1ty, win 7 64bit ultimate. But I can all play CMSF, CMBN scenarios at best/best, 4xFSAA settings and very acceptable FPS. Obviously, it is possible to build a huge scenario which will bring any system to its knees, but a company size battle on a medium urban/Bocage map is no problem. I would say the most important component is the CPU, the more powerful the better.

Remember that in RL in WW2, many units would get lost and never get into contact with the enemy or would go to ground as soon as they contacted enemy troops, so even in a full scale assault only part of your forces would be involved. Here, the player is always operating in god mode so he can make sure all of his forces are in action and his pixeltruppens will never disobey an order to charge a MG nest, so obviously casualties will be heavier than in RL. However in an actual firefight, say two squads firing across a field from behind respective hedegerows, casualties are about what you would expect: much lead flying, lots of suppression, minimal casualties per turn. WW2 firearms were less deadly than modern weapons (shorter range, ROF) and firefights are more drawn out than in CMSF.

very nice scenario, nice map.

As in CMSF, you can make 4x4km maps and play on huge maps...assuming you like slideshows. However, playing in Bocage country, you don't need big maps. Most fields were less than 200x200 meters and visibility is limited.

Still playing CMSF here as well as CMBN. I like the modern setting as much as WW2. Both play fine on win 7 64 bit. The one casualty as actually been CMBB which I finally retired after finishing my last PBEM game.

55 here, started wargaming in 1971 (AH Bismarck), then moved on to Panzerblitz, Panzerleadr, Arab-Israeli war, Squad leader and pretty much every other game AH or SPI put out.

Tactically, even when the Germans had superiority, they did not succeed. A good example is the defence of Putot-en-bassin and Bretteville by the 7th Canadian Infantry Brigade on june 7-10. They were attacked by the 12th SS Panzer division, but by employing proper defensive positions backed up by AT guns and pre-registered artillery, the 7th Bde stopped all the attacks cold. The 12th commander, Kurt Meyer, later admitted he had underestimated the canadians, employing tactics that had worked on the Ostfront (basically charging his tanks at the canadian positions) but that were useless against well trained troops.

I designed the scenario and even I wonder. It is supposed to be difficult and is based on some RL battles between the Syrian SF and the IDF in 82. The Syrians have a variety of plans and setups, but will not maneuver once in place. The Marines are moving through the valley not necessarily expecting resistance. The best approach appears to be to probe and reccon the Red forces. Once you know where they are, concentrate on a flank and try to destroy their forces piecemeal. The Marines have enough forces to do the job, but not if you go in piecemeal. Btw, watch out for the minefields.

Looking forward to it. I thoroughly enjoyed your Stalingrad operations for CMBB and the Anzio op for CMAK.

I played many CMSF PBEM games, almost all in Iron mode. In a PBEM game, Iron is not more difficult than Elite, but knowing what each unit can see does make you aware of any "blind spots".

I would just say "Canadian Army and friends" since the Canadians did all the real fighting against the SS anyway.

There. Fixed that for you.

That is the kind of immature attitude I would expect on a kiddie forum like ubisoft. No one bothers to discuss features or advance arguments anymore. If someone does not agree with your every whim, dismiss him as a "fanboi".

That must be a new record, first post at 4:11 am, tears off shirt and leaves for good at 9:01 am. Everyone is in such a hurry these days. In the old days, one would let the tension build up for days or weeks and over multiple threads before the final public meltdown. I must be getting old.

for the US side, a good starter is "Beyond the Beachhead:the 29th infantry division in Normandy" by Joseph Balkoski. It follows the US 29th division from Omaha beach to Mortain, with a focus on company sized battles, but also gives you a good overview of the challenges faced by both sides in the Bocage. for the CW, I would recommend Terry Copp's "Fields of Fire" on the Canadian Army in normandy.

I dont know if someone mentioned this, but the US developped the FIDO acoustic torpedo which homed in on the sound of a submerged submarine and sank 37 in WW2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Mine There is also the HVAR, High Velocity Aircraft Rocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVAR

re: Nam, I think BFC is softening on the issue, although it may just be wishful thiking on my part.

so when do we get to playtest this baby....

Its not on the drawing board now, but I am hoping we will eventually get North Africa 1940-43. It did not work very well in CMAK, mostly because of borg spotting, but would be great under the CMx2 system.

google maps has a "terrain" setting which you can use to see contours. I find it more useful than Google Earth for that aspect. Draw the general elevations and then fine tune it up or down, even small differences in elevation can be very effective in game. nice map so far.

You have various gaming clubs around the web, such as the Blitz, WeBoB, FGM, WaW, etc, where players play the various CM games and have various stats (i.e. games played, win/losses, ranking, etc.) recorded. That record is referred to as a ladder. Many competitive players in these clubs like to play QBs since it is easier to create a balanced scenarios with QBs due to the standardised maps and fixed force levels. Of course, ladder players are not the only ones who play QBs and not everyone in clubs only play QBs.

..."special" is an understatement...

according to BFC, most of the customers who purchase CM games of all ilk play mostly or exclusively against the AI. I do not have access to those statistics, so take their word for it, although if you compare the total sales to the number of players who belong to gaming clubs or play multiplayer, it makes sense. regarding QBs, every one has their own opinion and personal preference. QBs exist to allow players to setup a quick game using pre-made/random maps with arbitrary point totals. They do what they achieve, but I never saw one that was anywhere as good as a well designed hand crafted scenario. agreed. The QB system is being revamped for CMN to be closer to the CMx1 system.