Scipio

Well then, let's go on to something completly different ! Has somebody a map from the USA with an overview of US Army and USMC bases?

Paper Tiger, indeed I have never ever heard of a game that has lost a single sale because of modding. If I look how long even a prof team with Battlefront supports needs to complete CM:A, than I highly doubt that we would quickly have nameable numbers of alternative titles. But well, I agree that full and free modding support is not a good idea, mostly because of my H2H dedication and all compatibility and cheating issues that free modded engines will cause. Control must stay add BFC. Sounds like a contradiction, but somebody has control over the Linux kernel for example, too, and somebody still makes money with Linux. Just to go to an extrem... More modding then just textures & sounds would be at least wishable. How about for example user created buildings and other map stuff? Animations? Non critical things like that. Things that could officially aproved, implemented and released by BFC. Well well, I know...I'm just fantasising...

Sorry, I guess you missunderstood. My point is that the worry is overdone, because it's IMO unlikely that BFC will release more then 3 or 4 major games before the game is obsolete (or even incompatible to future OS) that it wouldn't matter anyway if somebody would create for example a full Pacific war mod. That BFC doesn't even have in the far shedul, BTW. Anyway, the bottleneck of BFC is the lack of human resources. From my god-like overview position as enduser it's easy to say that they should work on this in one way or another...

IIRC Steve once said about full modding support that they don't want that the people make everything out of the game. One reason is that the community would split up for compatibility reasons if people start to alter the core engine. As H2H-player I think this is a very good reason. The other reason I read out of this is 'we do not people want to mod the complete game, because we can't sell what they have created on their own for free', for example a CMx2 set in WWII Pacific. While I understand the worries, I think that they are overdone. The CMx2 core engine is already three years old now. Three years in software technology is a long time. I doubt that BFC will have released only the today announced games (including Bulge, Eastfront and CMSF2) before the engine is so ridiculous obsolete as CMx1 is today. Even if they would now hold the old promise "one major release and 2-3 modules per year". By then even a replacement for Windows Seven will be released...

No, there is only one icon for the M4 and one icon for the M4/M203

It's likely that I mod the Nato modul icons, too. Unfortunatly I don't know Dr. Noob, I just stumpled over his site some weeks ago.

Wiki even says that Syrian Army is equipted with 300 T-80 tanks... We all know that it isn't rue, since they would be modeled in CMSF otherwise

I have uploaded a fully revised version of my beloved coloured weapon icons to the repository on this site today. Since I'm not sure if a simple update will generate an auto announcement like a normal submission, I do this here. While I post this, I assume that the mod is not yet available, since BFC delays even mod releases ;-). However, you can take a preview on my own website at http://petzi-fr.bplaced.net/cmmods.php

That can be said about the place were I live, too. Temperatures range from -20° C (and cooler) in Winter up 38° C in Summer (last week). I live in Germany...

...and Korea is, BTW, the most likely ground for a temperate modern CM setting. At the current release cycle we can expect this game in ~2019. God dam, I'm 50 years old then *sight*

I fully agree. Seriously, BFC didn't even manage to get CMSF completed and iron out all this small errors, like the PM that is still modeled as AK-74, just to name one...

That's something I never really understood. Why don't they hire a second programmer? Surly easier said than done, but it looks like the logical step. Charles' physical limitations are the bottleneck in the CM development, and that's already from the beginning the time. May I quote my signature? Face the facts. Then act on them...

uninstall adaware and use adblock plus

Yes, okay, from some thousand board games (I did not spoke about board wargames only!) are a hand full for single players. And I got a new defintion for the word 'freak', horray!!! I didn't meant that the majority of CMSF players are playing H2H. I'm indeed aware that the opposite is true. The question is 'why'?? Just read what Lt Belenko wrote few posts above. Some (many??) people doesn't even seem to be aware that and how CMSF can be played H2H or how player are organized. That's what I was pointing at when I wrote about marketing and programming strategy. What if (hehe) CMSF would be a wargame with optimized H2h programming and marketing. Well, okay, you can even play it solitair if you want to...for training, maybe...

As far as I know, the trend is going to multiplayer/online games. That doesn't necessarily have be true for CM and other tactical/stratic wargames, even if many have some kind of H2H included. I sometimes wonder if the point here is the uninterested player, or a programming and marketing strategy that concentrates on single players and is missing the potential. No board game developer would ever have the idea to develop a single player game .

I disagree. About points 2. and 3.: Multiplayer/H2H-gaming of all kinds is the increasing market in the computer games segment. QBs are from my experience the best way to create somewhat ballanced scenarios, and this is important for H2H games. QBs are artificial, maybe, but that must be said about chess, too; a rather successful game, AFAIK. Beside that, a working QB system increases the replayability of a game, even for single players, much more than any originally shipped scenario or CM campaign can do. I wrote CM campaign, because the CM campaign system is technically ridiculous, with all respect. So in short words, a working QB system would be IMO much wiser than CM campaign. About 4.: The problem of the CMSF QB system is not that cherry picking is excluded. The point is that the automatic troop generation is working so poor in CMSF that I call it 'broken', not even bugged. I think it's wrong to restrict the group of affected players/customers on ladder players only.

Thank you very much guys, I took most of it into consideration. Please do not expect to much of me, I guess that's the very first scenario I release for CM at all.

Hi, would somebody please be so kind as to proofread this briefings for a scenario!? Thanks in advance!

If BFC starts to speak of a 'soon' release, expect that it will be in not less than 6 month. Generally you can multiply official announcemnets ("release in in 6 to 8 month" for example) with 3 to get close to the real release date

Might be, but that is really the only aspect that differs campaigns from scenarios. But that is rather secondary. You can't even differ core from support forces when playing a campaign. Anyway, this is going off topic, I guess

Well well. Looking back on the last three years it seems to me that an often used excuse for the delays was the development and polishing of the campaign(s). I could be wrong with this observation. If so, I would prefer if they release the game/module weeks earlier instead of wasting everybodies time. IMO, the campaigns aren't very attractive anyway, meaning: the single battles wouldn't be less fun if they would be single scenarios instead part of a campaign. The campaign battles doesn't really play very different from single scenarios, and there's nothing that make the core force of a campaign something special. They do not earn medals or honors or gain experience etc etc etc. That's of course a matter of taste. Anyway, I wouldn't mind if they release the game without campaign earlier and give away the campaign later.

Hey, look at the equipment list for the Bundeswehr in the announcment. It's rather short, or what? No MP2/5/7, no Milan ATGM, no G82, no HK69. No MTW M113. No Dingo. No Tornado!?! Sorry, but that's a bit poor for the long time this module has took. Is the equipment list for the other nations more complete??

"PIGS"...really I sometimes wonder what kind of stuff some people are smoking when building abbreviations.

You must have understanding for Belenko. Most US people don't know that there's a difference between Spain and Portugal. There's an old joke that US soldiers usually can not find the country there are fightin' in on a worldmap.

Well, the participaton of the Netherlands seems to me more kind of 'We were here'