Pak40

?? It's the ad not the article. They completely got the name wrong.

And now it's on Wargamer.com... STOP THE INSANITY!!! ☺️

Here's the same ad but this one popped up on my PC when visiting weatherunderground.com

This add just popped up on my phone: Combat Mission Show Force 2 On sale 30% off matrixgames.com

Have you read the books? I've just finished the second one and they've both been amazing. I only saw the 1st episode of season 1 because I heard that the 1st season kind of overlaps multiple books. I'm the kind of person that likes to read the books first.

Awesome, thanks for the link. I've read the book "No Better Place to Die" by Robert Murphy - an excellent read.

I, for one, am ready for the next line of CM engine. My vote goes for stop making CM2 products, It's time for CM3.

Echoing what everyone else here has posted: Wego is turn based and I think what most people play. Real time is mess if the unit count gets above a company size engagement. You can pause the action at any time in Real Time mode but when the unit count gets so large you'll find that you have to pause the action every few seconds to give or change orders. This sounds ideal until you realize that the game is being paused so often that it's not really "Real Time" any more. The one and only advantage that Real Time mode has over Wego is that you can give orders at any time, so you could avoid potent

Hofen is on the Monschau Master map. The town is just south of Monschau.

Yea, the town itself is a complete fiction compared to what it's actual layout and topography are.

Assuming that: surrender = losing remaining pixeltrupen on the map & total defeat cease fire = keep remaining pixeltrupen on map & accept current victory conditions Why then would anyone ever want to surrender in a campaign? You would get the worst possible outcome AND lose all of your pixeltrupen that could have been used in future battles. And when the AI decides to "surrender" then it's programmed to use surrender and not cease fire? Kind of seems like the AI gets the short end of the stick in this case.

When this happens I've never viewed it as a surrender of forces but rather a surrender of terrain. In other words, the last remaining forces decided that holding on to the terrain is not worth the cost and decide to pull out, i.e. surrender the terrain. The forces may be available in the subsequent battles if it's part of a campaign. However, I'm not sure what's really happening behind the scene. Is truly counted as a surrender of forces or a truce? And what if a human player decides to quit a battle as part of a campaign? He currently has two options - cease fire (which the AI must accep

I like the CMx2 engine also but it's run it's course. CMx3 engine better not be a mobile game. That's a horrible thought. Not sure if browser based is a viable option for an advanced wargame.

Since you're original post was about CMx3, the quotes from Steve in the past about financial viability may not apply to the new engine. Also keep in mind that if and when they do develop CMx3, things like "~2 minutes looking at loading the screen" probably won't be an issue since it will be in a different 3D engine. So, if they don't provide a valid TCP/IP method of play then we can still resort to PBEM with much faster load times. I sincerely hope that CMFB is the last of the CMx2 engine. I know they have some x2 modules to release but as far as "new games" I hope CMFB is last one.

Well, I'm no ballistics expert but there's a reason why they make hallow point bullets. Instead of passing cleanly though your body they collect and redistribute your insides. I think a disfigured round will act similarly and do a lot more damage than a nice clean round.