ParaBellum

I wonder how many times a company-battalion sized US force in Iraq went into action against enemy forces and didn't achieve its objectives, suffering a defeat. The whole "selective scenarios"-approach to accomodate for the vastly different force capabilities is a big problem for me, based on what I've seen so far about CM:SF, which is not much. I've said it in another thread before, but I wonder how many times I can read in a briefing that the airforce is grounded due to a sandstorm and artillery support is unavailable while I'm being ambushed by enemy forces intel hasn't picked up just to provide a somewhat balanced fight. [ April 01, 2006, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

The possible balancing problem caused by the state-of-the-art artillery of the US army is yet another thing that bothers me about CMSF. It will probably need to be restricted in a scenario (much like air support) somehow for playabiltiy reasons, but I somehow doubt I will enjoy such a "one hand tied behind my back"-approach. Same with airpower. I'm looking forward to see how BFC manages to put this all together into an interesting wargame.

Thanks Hunter, much appreciated.

Well, the lack of information is surely disheartening to me. After the initial buzz I haven't heard anything substantial about CMC. My initial enthusiasm has cooled down quite a bit.

Not that I'm desperate, but I haven't seen any news on CMC now for months in this forum. Isn't there ANYTHING you can tell us? I know you guys are probably working hard (you DO still work on CMC, right?) and just don't find the time to throw us a little bone every couple of weeks, but a tiny ounce of development news would be much appreciated.

I have used them on the defense quite effectively in the past. Give them vet crews, use keyholeing positions and place target reference points to help their accuracy. What worked best for me was using a team of them. Advance one to hull-down position, fire two-three rounds, reverse and advance the other into hull down position, fire two-three rounds, rinse and repeat. Overall I don't like them too much since they are extremely vulnerable to return fire and we can't really ambush with hidden (camouflaged) vehicles in CM, so AT guns usually work far better. I'd really like to see an option to camoe vehicles in CMx2. What we currently have (the "hide" command for vehicles)just doesn't work.

"There drew he forth the brand Excalibur, And o’er him, drawing it, the winter moon, Brightening the skirts of a long cloud, ran forth And sparkled keen with frost against the hilt: For all the haft twinkled with diamond sparks, Myriads of topaz-lights, and jacinth-work Of subtlest jewellery."

W0000T!!!!

Yeah, stop insulting his intelegence!

I'd say something like a AMD 64 4000+, a Gig RAM and an NVIDIA 6800GT.

I never had problems organizing CM TCP/IP games by simply writing the desired time (GMT/EST) in the opponent finder forum.

I like the sound of that, Kerry, I really do!

I've been using PCs since 1992, and my buying plan is still the same: I buy the top-of-the-line-stuff from 12 months ago. This gives me decent performance for a reasonable price. Every 2-3 years I replace/upgrade my system.

Vewwy, vewwy nice! The more I read about CMSF the more interested I get. I really like the idea of "helping" the AI during scenario creation. In CMx1 one could already improve the AI through careful placing of flags, avenues of approach etc., but it was a real pain.

The 0.50 cal can penetrate weak armour just fine. Try it out against some SPWs.

Must...resist...urge...to...nuke...Finland. :mad:

Ah, you're right, Sergei. They changed it so that the crew AI doesn't unbutton after you told them to close the hatches. Bobhorn, I meant to upload the file to some kind of webspace and post a link. For example, a free webhost is http://www.rapidshare.de/ Or you could send me the file and I would host it on my webspace.

The crew AI doesn't open the hatches by themselves. This feature has been added, AFAIK, already in one of the patches for CMBB. And no, I never encountered the situation you describe. Yould you post the PBEM file?

Oh, it does work. Press print screen, alt-tab (or press ESC) out of CMBB, open a paint program (MS paint will do), and use the paste function. Voilà.

HBlake, the PBEM files are encoded exactly to prevent manipulating them. As LeeW pointed out, you can import troops from a scenario to a new battle. This is not exactly what you're looking for but since I really don't think BFC will provide a way to manipulate the PBEM files this might be your best bet.

Ah, finally you see the light!

No, you can't increase the number of turns once a battle has started.

Yeah, give us the dam perimiter function!!! I demand it! GRAAAAAA!!! :mad: As long as CM doesn't model MGs entrenched on dams that can be taken out by concentrated beaver assaults it might as well be work of fiction! (ohh I forgot- it already is). :mad:

That's why I don't play against the AI as attacker. Except in very carefully crafted scenarios the AI on the attack against an at least somewhat skilled player simply sucks. A long time ago I posted a screenshot of a 105mm howitzer crew which had inflicted 200+ casualties. When I still played QBs against human opponents my 120mm FOs in a typical 1000-1500pts game usually accounted for over 50% of the enemy casualties. Those things are absolutely deadly. Indeed. Unfortunately lately I didn't have much time to play CM, but every time I start up the game and play a couple of turns I realize again what an incredible piece of entertainment it is.

Very nice, thanks!