ASL Veteran

not only is the Battlepack not a mod, but the premise that the Battlepack is somehow being 'foisted' upon BFC's customers is also pretty ridiculous. It is just as optional for someone to buy the Battlepack as it is for someone to 'voluntarily' contribute towards a mod. The only difference is that someone who doesn't pay BFC for the Battlepack doesn't get to play with the content while I guess 'voluntary' contributions for mods mean you get to choose not to contribute and still play the content anyway. This position then makes his little comments of 'I am willing to pay for mods and I do all the time' ring a little hollow since the foundation of his complaint is that he wants paying for the Battlepack to be 'optional' which in his case means 'I want the Battlepack to be free'.

It probably won't make you feel any better but I have a recollection of Steve himself posting on the forums a while ago that he preferred the old campaign system from CMx1. This was probably several years ago and he may not even remember posting it, but I remember because I think I asked him about the old campaign system making a return. The fact that BFC hasn't implemented something that BFC themselves would prefer should give you some indication as to how difficult it would be to implement and why it isn't already in the game. Even the way the old system worked in CMx1 was screwed up if we are honest about it. The game could never draw the new setup zones correctly since it generally just drew a single line down the center of the map without much accounting for where your troops actually were located. So yeah, a return of the old system will probably never happen and it isn't that way because BFC doesn't like the old campaign system. After all, they did it that way the first time they made a campaign system didn't they? It will never happen because BFC has determined either that it can't be done or that the cost of doing it is too high to be viable. It's just a business decision and we all have to live with it.

I think it is probably more fair to say that those who are enjoying the game as is have learned to adapt to the game environment as is. Could there be improvements in the way infantry operate inside the game environment - sure. However, what you want to do inside the game environment needs to have a realistic chance of being implemented within the restrictions of what the game code is capable of doing. If what you are asking is not possible to do within the game code then it really makes no difference how much someone asks for something to be implemented does it? The only people who knows what can and cannot be implemented within the confines of the game code is BFC and if BFC says something can't be implemented or won't be implemented then you are forced to place your faith in their evaluation of the situation. Once you have settled that in your mind you can then play the game as it is rather than spending time complaining about what it isn't.

I think it would be better to assume that turrets are modeled in the game the same way for every vehicle. I don't know that for a fact, but I also have doubts that every vehicle model is entirely unique in the way the game treats it when something is firing on it. Some turrets have a mantlet that is backed by a lot of open space and some probably don't. For example I don't think there is much, if any, turret armor behind the mantlet of the Pz III or the Pz IV. If you made the assumption that every mantlet was backed by turret armor then there would be a lot of needlessly uparmored turrets in the game so an across the board fix in the manner being requested probably isn't feasible or warranted. Maybe it works in this specific circumstance, but if the game doesn't know the difference then the proposed solution is still the wrong one for the game even if it can be argued that it would be the right solution per the individual vehicle specifications. Certainly you wouldn't want to make an across the board fix that just made things wrong the other way around for every other vehicle in the game in order to 'fix' one individual vehicle.

Wow, that's quite the rant ... there are a few things in life that could get me worked up that much but I don't think I would count the thickness of King Tiger Mantlet armor amongst them. I mean, realistically there has to be a hole in the turret or the gun barrel wouldn't be able to poke out of it ... right? Maybe that's just me. Seriously though, if someone is getting this worked up about King Tiger Mantlet armor I have to begin wondering what they do for a living and what they have invested in King Tiger armor values or why it matters this much. Yes, we all want the game to be using the correct figures and we want the game to be doing things right. Just because BFC's solution doesn't match someone's perceived solution doesn't mean BFC's solution is the incorrect one. BFC knows the code and knows how to apply things in the game and people unfamiliar with the code don't know how things get applied in the game. Maybe a better approach to ranting and raving would be to wait for the next patch and see what the results are of BFC's fix. At that point if the fix doesn't seem right then a new complaint can be lodged. Bursting a blood vessel in an argument about whether BFC is doing it 'right' or not isn't going to advance the issue one bit.

Ah yes, I was only thinking of regular army cavalry units, but there were indeed a couple of SS cavalry divisions as well. There were also a few Hungarian cavalry divisions too. I'm just glad that we were finally able to get the Soviet cavalry formations in CMRT even if they are dismounted. At least we can include them in battles now without their mounts. Nothing involving cavalry made it into CMBB.

Ummm, Steve has already stated on a couple of occasions that they are working on a UI upgrade. It just isn't going to happen for CMFB that's all. If a UI upgrade is necessary for you to enjoy the game then I suppose you have another option besides buy or don't buy. You can hold off on buying CMFB until the UI upgrade gets released and is backported to CMFB. So we should be able to put that complaint in the 'problem solved' category. I suppose that you could still complain and say that it 'should' be included in CMFB but since you already know that it is in the works that would simply mean that you want the CMFB release to be delayed for however long it takes for the UI upgrade to be completed. That would then mean that you want to deny those who are fine with purchasing CMFB as is the ability to enjoy the game when it is finally released 'soon'. You also want to take money out of BFC's pocket from the sales of CMFB and delay that income until the UI upgrade is complete. So, in other words, you would rather not buy now but force everyone else to wait for another year because you want that upgrade included in CMFB rather than to let everyone else buy CMFB now and have you wait another year by yourself because you can't play without a UI upgrade when it is finally released. I find the argument that is being put forward that ownership of prior releases entitles someone to complain to be a specious one. Granted, a person who has purchased prior titles has more personally invested in the series but the option is always whether you want to buy or not buy based upon what's being offered because BFC has absolutely nothing invested in you. If ten new customers buy CMFB and one old customer doesn't buy it then BFC is still ahead irrespective of whether you bought it or not. Those purchases that you made before have already been put in the bank or spent by BFC a long time ago and have no bearing on anything going forward. I had almost every Total War game ever released up until Shogun 2 was released so I had a lot invested in that series, but I delayed buying Rome 2 until it was on sale on Steam and after a short honeymoon I found that I didn't like it. I haven't bought a Total War game on release for quite a while and even with an extended wait the Total War siren song drew me in to try one more time. The game was okay for what it was I guess, but it wasn't exactly what I was hoping for. I doubt that I'll ever buy another Total War game again and that's my choice. After all those releases I have a good idea about the Total War game design philosophy now and I basically know what to expect for future releases. Nobody from Total War is going to show up at my house and demand that I buy the next one and if I don't visit their forums I won't have to interact with anyone who likes it as is. I'll just play Europa Universalis now instead.

Yeah, I have to admit that I don't get it. Okay, if like Europa Universalis and I don't like Total War I guess I can understand that for one release I might hang around the Total War forums and complain that Total War isn't like Europa Universalis but after a release or two I have to admit that I probably wouldn't be hanging around the Total War forums anymore. In this case you have at least one guy stating that another game is superior to this one and maybe three or four other guys saying that the game is a waste of money before is it even released and they do this release after release for about the last - what - two or three years or something? At what point does someone finally just pack it in and admit to themselves that the game isn't to their liking, is likely never going to be to their liking, and just decide to play something else? Why waste the time investment in the forums here making demands that the developer has directly told them are unrealistic and will never be included? I have enough other things going on in my life that wasting time release after release on a forum for a game I don't like seems like inexplicable activity to me.

The Panzergrenadiers that come with the Panzer Brigade formation - I don't remember what it's called in game.

There were German cavalry formations on the Eastern Front in 1944. They had a brigade or two from what I recall. There was also an SS Fallshirmjager battalion in the east too.

Flashless and Smokeless powder can be known easily enough. All you need to know is the chemical composition of the various gunpowders used by the forces involved. You can then make your case. The US and British navies were using flashless powders after WW1 but even with flashless powder the muzzle flash is not eliminated entirely and apparently there were storage issues. Even modern NATO weapons have muzzle flash and I can't believe that German gunpowder technology from WW2 is superior to what is used in NATO weapons today.

No I don't. For one thing your test was in daylight and flash isn't going to have much of an effect during situations where visibility is not limited. If flash has no effect during daylight then I wouldn't be surprised at all. For another thing, if you have already stated that it is a fact that spotting is increased when a unit fires and you have already ruled out flash then I simply want to know what you think is the cause of the increased spotting. It is a very simple question and if you continue to avoid addressing it then I have to assume that you are unserious. If you believe it is sound then that can be tested easily enough by placing a tall wall between the spotting unit and the firing unit so that they can't see each other.

That's all very interesting Carl, but you haven't addressed the question. This is what you said above "The fact that in game spotting chances go up, if a unit opens fire IMO is NO indication that the muzzle flash effect is modelled at all" If you believe that there is no correlation between muzzle flash and spotting, and if you agree as "fact" that spotting chances increase when a weapon is fired then you need to identify what you think is causing the increase in spotting. Have you tried any spotting tests under low visibility conditions?

If you agree that the spotting goes up when a unit fires and you don't think that muzzle flash is the reason why, then it would be helpful if you could tell us what reason would you attribute the increased spotting chance to? It can't be dust because the increase is noticeable in limited visibility conditions. I'm also not sure taking a position that a gun firing at 1000m should have an equal chance of being spotted to a gun firing at 300m is a very .... well defensible position to take. It isn't as though a weapon firing is the equivalent of a flare going off. Muzzle flashes only last a fraction of a second and In normal daylight conditions they are barely, if at all, noticeable.

Oddly enough I only bought the original game. It wasn't necessary for me to buy ASL and all the extras because my friend had all of that stuff. My friend probably would have that issue since he was proud that he had a 'complete' collection and maintained it until very recently. I was fairly lucky because I had access to several opponents growing up, but alas, that was a long time ago in a state that is now far far away.

The mountain units that I know of were mostly transferred in from Finland and hadn't seen much combat for a couple years. Other mountain units were used in the Carpathians and in Yugoslavia so I'm guessing that most mountain units still had decent mountain specific training. I don't think any brand new mountain units were created at the end of the war in the way Para units were. There weren't any 'branch' differences between mountain and regular army units either in the way that there was between air force and army so the internal political considerations would be absent.

I don't even know what a reduced armor Elefant variant would be.

The last Elephants ended the war in the East. I think they finally expired somewhere in Slovakia although I'm not positive of that. I can look it up though I guess.

I'm pretty sure that the temporary ban has already been lifted, although I can't be certain. Temporary bans are usually only for a few days. I'm going to assume that Jason is simply choosing not to post at the moment. Whether or not he wants to contribute again is entirely up to him (assuming the temp ban has been lifted of course).

As far as infantry skylining goes, I'm pretty sure that the issue is the game isn't smart enough to know when you want the infantry to see and when you don't want the infantry to see. The game always tries to put infantry in a position to spot and fire at enemy soldiers so it will tend to place squad members in position to do that even in situations that you don't want them to. If infantry never sought higher ground in order to spot enemy soldiers then there would be just as many complaints going the other way (my infantry refuse to take firing positions near the crestline - fix or do somefink). It is simply a game limitation. I suppose in theory it could be mitigated by having a command to have soldiers either seek firing positions or to remain out of sight, but BFC isn't big on adding micro commands to the game so I would expect that limitation to remain.

Well that's the thing isn't it? I don't think anyone would mind if he made some scenarios and then said 'I think this is the best way to depict WW2 East Front combat' and just put them up for download. The problem comes when he says that everyone else is wrong - which is pretty ridiculous considering the breadth of combat situations that could be represented in scenarios and the limited number of scenarios that come with each release. It is one thing to say that battles with King Tigers in them were rare, but it is another thing to state that any scenario with them in it is not representative of actual combat. Especially when they are included in a scenario that was well researched and which, in fact, included King Tigers in the actual battle.

Making a scenario in CMBB is a completely different animal than making one in CMRT. It takes a lot more work and requires a lot more detail. You can probably make three or four scenarios in CMBB in the time it takes to make one in CMRT and the design challenges and limitations are different. If someone doesn't understand those limitations then that can lead to nonsensical statements if those statements are based on the way the old game works or are made without knowledge of the limitations of how the current editor works. I'm sure Jason means well, but he isn't really giving any useful feedback. What he is doing is saying that everything that ships with the game is historically inaccurate or is not representative of reality (no matter how well researched apparently). He then proceeds to tell us all the 'correct' way to make scenarios because nothing anyone makes seems to meet his standards or perception of what is 'correct' in his view. Well that isn't helping anyone because designers can't design scenarios that please everyone. That is an impossible task. Each release comes with scenarios designed by several different people who each has their own style and he can't seem to find any that suit his tastes. If he can't find any designers who make something that he likes then rather than spending his energy telling everyone about their failures in his eyes he could spend his time in a more productive way by creating stuff for the community. There are several scenarios in the release that even have a listing of references included in the designers notes so when someone comes on here and says that nothing is accurate in spite of the research that went into the creation process it shouldn't be surprising if that rubs some the wrong way.

There are a couple of Canadian scenarios that come with the release, but yeah there probably aren't as many as there could be.

I would just like to point out that anyone who has had the opportunity to research battles down to the company or battalion level will very quickly discover that very few, if any, battles play out or get fought in the 'text book' manner. It may be the case that X is supposed to happen followed by Y, but even with pre planned and deliberate attacks things seldom match the 'script' as written by the attacking commander or as spelled out in the field manuals. It would be historically inaccurate to try and force scenario designers to conform to a battle script of what some individual deems to be the 'right' way to do something.

Try it out and find out. The side surrendering would 'lose' per the games surrender protocol, but all VP would be assigned by the designer so it could result in a curious outcome whereby the side that surrenders gains more points than the side that wins. Just do something simple and tell us the results and if the results are odd enough maybe something can be changed or fixed.