Sirocco

I wasn't arguing with you, you misrepresented what I said. I take exception to that, but sadly that appears to have become your MO. If you can do something you regard as being better, that's fine. But then your idea of QB's for CMx2 was better than the implementation in CMx1, as was the interface you came up with. Therefore please forgive my lack of confidence. I said at the start of this thread that I hoped we could have a new, more productive atmopshere here, but with pricks like your testers running around loose with their arrogant and condascending attitudes I think there's little hope for that. I might drop in here once in a blue moon, but after eight years this place no longer feels like a welcoming community full of mature debate. I hope somewhere down the road you rediscover the core ideals that made this a pleasant place to visit, but personally I'm done here.

And yet you continue to prattle on?! And yes, I have been a Sub Unit (Squadron / Company) Commander. </font>

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. You argue it's unrealistic, then it's realistic. As company commander you know what's core and what's attached. If you want to mask that to prevent misuse, I can understand that. I think it hurts associating with your pixeltruppen which is one of the basics of a good campaign, but you're the boss, so, as you say, it's not open to debate. Acknowledging a commanders core units - completely unrealistic? And who's forcing the player into unrealistic decisions?

So, a company commander doesn't exist, he's just an officer floating around waiting for a battlegroup to be assigned to him, of which he has no permanent connection?

I fail to see how realistic it is that as the commander you have no idea what unit you're in control of, and what units have been attached for this particular mission. But, again, your bat and ball.

I wouldn't like to see medals/promotions, either. The timespan covered isn't relevant for one thing. And I'd be quite happy to see something along the lines of point 2. I disagree about the lack of importance for core units, though, when it comes to campaigns for gameplay reasons, as previously stated.

You're attempting the arguing from authority gambit, and I refuse to play.

I stopped reading at this point.

I hate scenarios. I hated them with CMx1, and I hate them with CMx2. Too often I found I was having to execute the designers plan, rather than construct my own. And I'm not alone in that. At the end of the day, if BFC are committed, as they are, to reducing content, the games must make up for that by utilising what content there is to its greatest effect. You don't like a more rounded QB system? Don't use it. You don't like more chrome on campaigns? Skip the roster, or whatever is used, screen.

All good things, but if QB's are busted, and the campaign is as flat as a pancake, not as many people will get to see those features.

The point isn't whether scenarios weren't fun, it was the sense of "ownership" that was lacking, and you don't need to play through an entire campaign to see that. I finished the first one, then the second loaded, and I exited. I didn't feel compelled to continue.

Here's the thing; it's a game. You don't get more unrealistic than that. People aren't arguing for Hamstertruppen, just a sense of actually caring what happens to units. If you don't care for what happens to your units in a campaign you pulled the rug out from under the whole concept. </font>

Here's the thing; it's a game. You don't get more unrealistic than that. People aren't arguing for Hamstertruppen, just a sense of actually caring what happens to units. If you don't care for what happens to your units in a campaign you pulled the rug out from under the whole concept.

I think it's an issue on a narrow scale in terms of the campaigns that ship with the game. And I also think it's an issue in the wider sense of building a campaign system that's superior to the current one.

But for a campaign to work you have to associate with the core units. I don't see how you can work around that. If you don't have that association you're left with a string of scenarios. To remove that because of possible abuse of attached units would be like not eating ice cream because you don't want to wash the spoon afterwards.

What about factoring in the proportion of aux losses to core losses and either crediting or debiting the "score" accordingly? You could win the battle but effectively be relieved of command for poor leadership. Of course coding that to take into account unit types would take some thought.

I thought that was a big mistake. A big part of a campaign is identifying with your core units. Of course that can be abused, but to throw out a core component of campaigns to avoid some people doing that is a poor design choice, IMHO.

I'm not sure what you mean with this. The AI doesn't use air and artillery well? As I understand it, no water until WW2, and that would go for snow, too, perhaps even a Bulge or Eastern Front game. Out of scope. No new QB system until WW2 I think. And I haven't heard anything about a campaign generator. That would fall under the QB system?

Aren't Mishga and Meach a couple? I vaguely remember something along those lines. That might explain the same IP, if that's the issue here.

I would suggest early is the best time to discuss it, rather than wait until it's set in stone, a la the CMSF QB's.

I'm glad to hear that both the interface and QB's will be improved. What has disappointed me, and I think quite a few other posters here, has been the absolute resistance to continued observations of problems with these very features. The end result has been a poisoned atmoshphere which has made it difficult at times to even offer constructive criticism. And without a genuine back and forth that valued input is gone. I hope that we can draw a line under all that now and move forward in a more positive tone.

I think it's more a case of what gets fixed, added, etc. Not a major change in direction.

With such a limited scope this time a good campaign, with some real detail to it, and fully featured QB are essential.

Normandy, 29th ID from Omaha to St.Lo, Canadian 3rd ID Juno to Carpiquet, British 3rd ID from Sword to Caen. German opponents would include 3rd(?) FJ Div, 12th SS HJ Div and 21st PD Div. Market Garden and the Bulge would also provide excellent material for modules. If the plan is to do one Western Front game with modules, then an Eastern Front game with modules.

He can't even conduct himself like a civilized human being on e-bay from what I've previously read in a thread on the general forum, so I am going to have to politely disagree with you on that one gang. </font>