Mord

I can't. I am too old and fat to turn my head. Mord.

Jesus...I started thinking about the title of the thread and realized I am starting my third decade of playing this series. Where did that time go? Mord.

To be a little more concise, when playing Iron Mode you can see all the icons when you click away from a unit (for example on the ground). When you select a unit you'll only see the icons of the units they are in contact with. Mord.

Little Twilight Zone flashback by the dude that played the creepy little kid. Mord.

Mord.

@Recognitionstole some of my first choices! Love Fischer Z! Mord.

@Erwin, @mjkerner (Heisenberg), It's a compilation/update Smart Wargames put together. It isn't listed on CMMODs. Mord. P.S. All that time he claimed he was building a "tack room" for Martha, he was constructing a Meth bunker for his empire of drugs and debauchery...

He's using the Steam version, so it has to go in the data folder. I'll repeat what I said to you on there. For Steam you create a folder called "Z" (or "Z Mods" or whatever) in your data folder. Put your mods in that folder. Will be found under Drive:/Steam/steamapps/common/Combat Mission Shock Force 2/data. Mord.

Try this. Extract the Z Mod folder into your data folder (it has all the files for the T-90s and BTR-82s.) We'll see if that works. Location will be drive:/Steam/steamapps/common/Combat Mission Black Sea/data https://www.mediafire.com/file/2df4qd49gj6bvsh/Z_Mods.zip/file If it works it will give us an idea of what might be going wrong. Let me know when you DLed it so I can remove it. Mord.

Here you go. Whatever you can't find here https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/ you should find here http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/ Mord.

As far as I know a dlc is planned for the Iran-Iraq War. I haven't seen anything beyond that. They have a lot of stuff lined up but I can't see them all coming to fruition, not at the rate they are going. Mord.

Divided Ground: Middle East Conflict 1948-1973? That'd be one gigantic map! 1 Hex = 250 Meters (820 Feet) 6.43 Hexes = 1 Mile 4 Hexes = 1 Kilometer You could always make your own, cut them up into sectors. The Nam master map is gonna be pretty huge but I don't see them making anything like that for Syria because of the time frame. They didn't have any major wars inside the country in the 60s, 70s or 80s did they? Mord.

Campaign Series: Middle East 1948-1985 It's mainly the Arab-Israeli War, but includes Britain, France, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Syria and Lebanon. Eventually they are supposed to add an Iran Iraq dlc. It's a heavily updated version of the old Tiller Campaign Series. They are supposed to release Campaign Series Vietnam this year. You can find info on Slitherine/Matrix. The other screens are Field of Glory I. Mord.

Oh, yeah. I owned the original back in 1994ish? Whatever year it came out. Don't own the Shrapnel version though. (See Below) I have Steel Panthers MBT. I grabbed it to fill in the gaps that CM doesn't cover, to enjoy a different style of play and have access to more obscure conflicts/armies. But it's hard on the eyes. I also have Campaign Series Middle East and the WWII titles (same reasoning). I view them as more like a table top or board game to get around all the abstractions, and that is fine. I also like the fact that they are able to simulate things that CM can't or is outside its scope, like bridge laying, mine laying, building entrenchments. I like that huge diorama feel and the big detailed maps. I don't mind that the infantry is like a clump of posed minis. I can easily imagine my guys in one of those little villages or in a city. But it's really hard to see what the units are. I find myself squinting even while looking at them on a 42" TV. But to prove I am not a graphics snob, I find these to be excellent and quite immersive. A couple figure can represent hundreds, no animations to speak of outside of some flying arrows and javelins, and I enjoy them. So, my bar isn't very high. LOL. Yep. No argument there. Mord.

LOL. No. The first post,that quoted you, was a no...with caveats. Mord.

I understood. I think we both were too amped up to make everyone else understand! LOL. Mord.

A perfect example of taking the hex, a quirky art style, and flipping a genre on its head, would be Second Front. If that game lives up to it's design it is gonna be an amazing piece of wargaming. Maybe not for everybody, but a damned unique and interesting addition to the hobby. Mord.

So, let me be a little clearer as I think a lot of my point got lost in my rhetoric/hyperbole and inability to explain it better, last night. I am not attacking hex-based games, nor operational level games, nor board games translated over to the computer etc. As I said before, there's room for all, and to each his own. I am attacking the stale notions that some wargamers still cling to (and you know you've seen these guys) that resist and oppose innovation and graphical enhancement because of some backwardass nostalgic loyalty to days gone by. Enjoying an operational, hex-based, wargame is not the same animal as dismissing everything else that isn't one. That's the main thing I am driving at. Ian's post just sent me into a rant that I have had brewing for a few years now. LOL As I touched on above, CMBO was savaged by the faithful when it was first developing. How dare they step away from the top-down, hexagonal, turn-based tradition of true wargaming? Then as it matured and was released it grew into acceptance. People embraced this new style and it was lauded and defended for the most part, in most corners of the Wargamosphere. Then when the engine was exhausted they started developing the next gen. The second it was understood that CMx2 wasn't gonna be another abstracted 3D clone with some updates and a new coat of paint, the witch burning commenced by the very same people that defended it. They couldn't stand the 1:1 representation, the higher fidelity terrain, the concentration on more details and abandonment of abstraction. A lot of those guys hung around on a board for YEARS prophesying the demise of Battlefront.com. LOL It took so long they finally got sick of their own hate and quit. Does anybody think that if Steve and Charles could've created BN in 2000 they wouldn't have? The thing that stopped them was the technology. I highly doubt three man squads was their idea of Wargaming Nirvana. And does anyone think that 1:1 infantry is just a frivolous eye candy addition to CM tactics? If you do, you haven't been paying attention to your battles. Mord.

No. I am not real big on operational level games. I have a distinct dislike for NATO symbols, always have. They just don't do anything for me. That scale and the visuals takes me away from the intimacy of the fighting. But if the counter squares were switched over to actual tanks, infantry, airplanes, ships models/sprites it would probably be much more appealing to me. I have been dicking with a JTS demo for Napoleon. You can view the battle with miniatures on "3D terrain" and zoom out to symbols and a 2D map. I like that aspect because it feels like you are going from the battlefield to a commander looking over his plans. Best of both worlds I guess. Though, as I said, they GOTTA update the graphics. However, I can appreciate that Com Ops2 is innovative and designed outside the stereotypical box. Same goes for Command: Modern Operations, War in the Pacific, War in the East II, Lock N Load, to name a few. Games that don't interest me for one reason or another but have updated the traditions they have come from and dare to be more. I am more about the tactical to grand tactical level when it comes to wargames (with a few exceptions). They feel more gritty, personal and immersive to me. I like the stories they create. The biggest level games I probably play are OOB WWII and Unity of Command but most would agree they are Beer and Pretzel. I enjoy the art aesthetic of Unity, and I love all the units in OOB. As an aside there are ways for games to create intimacy, immersion and less visual abstraction, and that's through the UI. Tiller is able to do this with the unit cards. Though I am not overall attracted to his stuff, it's one area I think would fit well in a lot of games, with more detailed info though. There's a lot of immersion that can be found in a unit card that can offset more abstract graphics. Mord.

No. But it would be odd if you thought every wargame on the planet should look like that. Or it would be odd if they made that look a hundred times better than it does and you complained about it. It would be odd if you thought that was the height of what a computer should offer the genre. But you are here, playing CM, so you obviously aren't the target of the rant. Mord.

Marco is the man! I love that dude. He talks to me when I post in the chat just about every week. Mord.

Because there are still Boomer Luddites who'll say "I don't care what a game looks like as long as it plays well", followed by "Will it work on XP?" They have no foresight and a pathological inability to step outside of their comfort zone. You taste a meal with your eyes before it touches your tongue. We live in a time where you can have both great graphics and great game play, but if it were up to these dummies we'd still be looking at NATO symbols on a monochrome abacus, as long as it tracked how many buttons the fallschirmjäger lost in the arty barrage. There were guys that wouldn't play FoG II because the maps used squares instead of hexagons. The squares actually allow you to maintain consistent lines, even while moving units. And instead of being able to attack and move in 6 directions, the code provides movement and attack in eight directions (utilizing the corners of the square). Objectively better in all ways. Screw that! I've been using hexagons since 1975, therefore REEEEEEEEEE! They even bitched because the models had animations! Then there was the collective pants pissing when CM dared not be everything that came before it. It irritates me, how much wargamers are their own worst enemies. I play computer games because I don't want to look at an abstract symbol on a piece of card board, I want to see the little dudes, and tanks, or knights, or Romans or ships, whatever. I don't even mind a 2D, isometric, table top miniatures feel as long as the sprites weren't ported over from 1992. If JTS games would update their UI and graphics to about 2010 standards I'd be happy to purchase a lot of their 18th-19th Century gunpowder titles. Funnily enough they are working on a new engine and players are requesting they not change that Antediluvian tool bar abomination. Yeah, that'll help sell 10s of more games! Do you know the fastest way to get me to put my wallet back in my pocket? Show me a square with a NATO symbol. In the end, I guess it's a matter of taste, and there is room for all types, but that doesn't mean they should look like a pig fart. But if we didn't have developers that could see past Avalon Hill circa 1974. I probably wouldn't even be playing any wargames. Mord.

10-4. Thanks for helping him. Mord.

LOL. Yes, I am! Nah, he just needed a link to Greenasjade's to get the old style BN portraits. Mord.

Yep. Thanks. Took care of his request. he just needed a link to Greenasjade's. Yes. Has potential. Thankfully I didn't buy Check Your 6. It could've been good if it had been done by a decent developer. Mord.