SteveS

It is obviously just a bug no-one has noticed before. Scenario designers at least should take some steps to counter it. If they clearly want the player to use a pre-planned bombardment they should make sure the FO is not a radio FO. If they must have a radio FO in the scenario then they should enter as reinforcement after turn 1 so a pre-plan strike can't be issued.

I agree with Michael. I would pay for another version of CMX1 which simply had the ETO units in CMBO within the CMAK engine. And I say "simply" because I can't believe it would be that much programming effort to add them, and most of what effort it would take would probably be provided by volunteers. If it would take a huge effort to, for example, add Cromwells into CMAK I'd be really interested to understand in some detail why. Zero effort seems to be what is available from BF in which the discussion is moot. This seems to be a question of policy, not of will. Btw, I have bought CMX2. I pre-ordered it and hopefully it may actually arrive in the post sometime. [ August 20, 2007, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: SteveS ]

Good. Thanks. I am quite pleased that is the case. It implies the game has a decent range of scalability once the hardware catches up. Micromanagement on the level of the individual soldier would be real drudge. It will be fun seeing how it works in practice though

How does the command system with squads actually work? You give the whole squad a single command as in CM right (this was my understanding from a previous thread) then the tacAI tries to make each individual do something intelligent? e.g. Say you send a squad into a room? Assuming you've not commanded them to hide, do they distribute themselves around the windows or firing points automatically? What happens if you want to micromanage a given squad member to a particular position? Can you do that? Enquiring minds want to know [ June 25, 2007, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: SteveS ]

Join a club like the Band of Brothers. http://www.webandofbrothers.de/ All the opponents you could possibly want plus many organised tournaments if you like that sort of thing.

I'm busy at the moment, but you could consider joining the Band of Brothers (I'm a member). People in this club are much more reliable than random opponents. http://www.webandofbrothers.de/

I'm suprised Battlefront didn't sponsor this sort of tournament and made it a yearly event. All they would have needed to provide was a bit of web space to hold the results and some prizes in the form of a few games and such. They would have got plenty of volunteers to do all the donkey work. I'm sure a tournament called the "Combat Mission" World Championship would have generated an article or two in the gaming press for a bit of free publicity.

Is there going to be another one? I thought ROW V was the last. Sorry, don't have a CMBB suggestion in mind. Been a while since I've played it.

Yup, unless CMSF actually has PBEM or similar I'd imagine I'll be playing CMAK (less so CMBB) for some time. The quality of the graphics is now largely irrelevant for me in those games. Hell, I stopped bothering with MODs a couple of years ago. Still, I doubt I would have the energy to bother with CMC if it came out, unless it was part of a well-run tournament. My main regret now is that I suspect I'll never get the chance to win some of Winecape's fine wines he offered a year or so ago Also, to be honest, JasonC rather convincingly shot a few holes in the basic concept.

What would Harry Yeide have to say I wonder? I've not read his TD book, but the blurb would seem to indicate he would lean towards Jason's side in this.

Actually, so did I Then you came out with CM and suddenly reading about whether bren guns had tripods or not became strangely fascinating.

What are you on about? Does this and your earlier CM Dropshot (Drop Team?) remark mean that you equate this game concept to "Space Lobsters"? I think those expressing enthusiasm for a CM version of Nato v WP do so for much the same reasons they bought CMx1 and will buy CMx2...because they are tactical simulators of real-life weapon systems.

This is one of my concerns with CMx2 along with the issue of scale. The game is smaller scale than CMx1 in terms of the typical number of units but larger in terms of the effective kill ranges of much of the weaponary. The WW2 battlefield seems better integrated in that sense. Still, I will pay my money to give it a go. I would also, however, have preferred to see a fictional game based on a post WW2 conflict between US/Europe and the Soviets/Warsaw Pact. Set it in the 1950's and you could have had Korea moddable for it as well easily enough.

Just noticed the following article which might be of interest to some, if only that they get to see their forum remarks re-quoted F2C2 The article mentions the ethical problems of presenting too rosy-eyed a view of future warfare. One would think that 5 minutes of watching the news would temper that viewpoint, however, I have not noticed a discussion on CMSF about the implications of selling a commercial game which is meant to be realistic (apologies if you have done so). i.e. if the capabilities of the weapons as presented in the game are representative of real-life, how do you feel about how such a tool could be used by potential adversaries of US forces? In my opinion the more realistic the better for a variety of reasons, but I could imagine a similar article to the above in right-wing parts of the press questioning the ethics of a realistic simulator.

Yes, but it is 95% accurate so only around 6 of the 120 odd missiles fired so far will have smashed into nearby apartment blocks. Aren't precision guided munitions great. You can fire ten times as many of them because you claim they are ten times more accurate.