dieseltaylor

I found it somewhat annoying as the information is lost in the overacting. Also for the Badminton one the amount of bra showing seemed to change frequently and was quite distracting. That knowledge is being put out is a good thing. Its a shame subtleness in being attractive is not highlighted. She is gorgeous and no dummy. No for another great sport Kabaddi : )

JasonC This report http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/mipb/1996-1/delagius.htm seems to indicate that the artillery fire was not available. But then again it is the the report that does not mention the four artillerymen and is highlights hundreds of bodies. Disappointing froma military man if he is the one in the wrong. Fortunately dawn and dusk are not time zone dependent : )

You bought CMBN v1.0 with a set of features for $55. You had a choice to buy or not buy, but based on what features were offered you decided it was worth purchasing, so you did. Now you've had the game for about a year and a half. How much have you played the game in terms of time? How does that compare to what you pay for other games or entertainment per hour of usage? Favorable, I'm sure. Fraid not as the other two copies went to people who no longer play it either. Playing the AI might be of interest but I had huge problems in believing that the tank movement [particularly in reverse]and accuracy model were realistic which made me lose interest - other than waiting for patches. I reckon to have played certainly less than 50 hours and perhaps slightly less in testing. So on a hour per dollar rate Civ4 and Borderlands have been much more effective both in the single cents. OK, so now an Upgrade 2.0 comes out with an entirely new set of features for $10. Since you did not pay a penny for those features, why should you be entitled to them for free? Any argument you attempt to make which doesn't address this fundamental point is irrelevant. Its not a matter of entitlement but of BF essentially fragmenting the players. Upgraded it may be but with lots of features I am not interested in - what do I care about graphics and mapmaking. I just want my game to be compatible with the majority of players, and to be able to take any patches in the future. It does not hurt that cover arcs and waypoints are included but then perhaps they should have been in a patch or V1.00. Viewed from my perspective if I do not pay-up I will become part of a diminishing pool of potential opponents with no patch support. Its not so much I want the upgrade but more by its existence my CMBN and CW become less useful and less viable in the future. ................................................................................................................. Thank you for responding with your views though, and to another poster on the nature of small business and the importance of cashflow and making a living. I am investor in companies with similar cashflowcentric modes. And for those reading and just for the record I am pretty sure I have donated a minimum of at least $10 to each of the three famous scenario/mod hosting sites over the last decade so its not like I am totally tight with cash for the CM community.

Cracking link Jon. What a site. Thanks

Hmm. Tricky. The argument was that commercially speaking BF really should make both games on the same platform for the following reason: I am going to offer you two cars and one is called a CMFI 2012 and is the new improved model of the CMBN 2011. Which one are 99% of the public going to go for? My money is they go fo the improved version. They may like it lots but then are they going to want to buy the older game and learn its shortcomings - very probably not. Now I could offer you two models called CMBN 2012 and CMFI 2012 and it is just possible you prefer Normandy, or you like both and will buy both. And whats more they have the same engine so its easier for new parts I hope that is clear. My beef about paying for the upgrade is that I think I have been a guinea pig for CMBN whilst it has had its kinks knocked out. As it happens I am also an idiot and paid BF eleven or twelve bucks of which they will get ten bucks for all the past pleasure I had with CMAK. And perhaps one day will have with CMX2V2 : )

Interersting stuff Furi AFAIR the War Dept in its WW2 studies was of the opinion that bullets needed to pass within or presumably hit within 1 metre [yard?] to provide suppressive effect. I am sure some mathematical type will be able to construct some formula on that sort of info! : )

Good to hear the other side so we can actually talk constructively about perceptions and reputation. For instance: I don't doubt the truth of that but the other way to put it is how many CMBN's would you sell if it were not updated to V2.0? Not very many. So the decision to upgrade CMBN means BF have a highly saleable product rather than a lame duck and can recover the previous investment in CMBN v1.0. Looked at it that way means BF took a rational decision to maximise previous work rather than an ungracious: Most game developers I suspect do not bring out the same game within months of the original utilising pretty much all the same theatre rules and scale etc etc. and if they did charging full whack might raise some hackles. I did buy the upgrade a couple of days ago. I do try to keep you in business despite the opinions that seem to be held on pesky customers and the need to communicate.

I actually trust no one : ) Check everything but most particularly populist military writers.

Following on from a JK linky and as I rather loathed the style of writing for "The Longest Winter " and I wondered about it. Looking at Wikipedia gives the battle and the information there comes from an Army captain writing in the 90's. Looking at the bio of Boucks on Wikipedia reveals a very large discrepancy of around 300+ casualties on a total of 500 men. Which then makes you wonder about the unit citation. They did a superb job and were well lead but it is kind of interesting where the casualty figures derived from. Heroes in anyones book but the Paratroop Battalion seem duncelike and it would be nice to hear the other side of the story. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/mipb/1996-1/delagius.htm From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_Bouck Looking at the 1981 award citation they quote the holding of the position for a delay of 18 hours however the actual battle was apparently from dawn in mid-winter to dusk so that would be roughly 6- 7am to 4 pm. I will be more precise on the 16th!. http://www.ww2awards.com/person/35716 Just as an interesting aside someone decides to add a novel twist in 2011. http://www.ives42.com/ives42/about-2/veterans-day-speech-2011/

Following on from a JK linky and as I rather loathed the style of writing for " The Longest Winter " and I wondered about it. Looking at Wikipedia gives the battle and the information there comes from an Army captain writing in the 90's. Looking at the bio of Boucks on Wikipedia reveals a very large discrepancy. So read it first! and then the second is the research bit. Here is about the book.

thejetset Three copies of CMBN, one of the Commonwealth, none of the CMFI and one V2 upgrade. Do you see a sign of diminishing willingness to buy. And as for getting mates to buy, or giving the game as presents - NEVER AGAIN. And no I have not counted the postage, import taxes, and the exchange rate costs. Nidan : ) I have no idea which bit you don't understand. My cunning ruse over paying $10 and making people feel good? That is subtle. Rocky I ordered CMBN and paid up before the demo was released. Check the dates : ) Now why the demo came out after the rush for the metal box edition might just show how savvy BF are! : ) As for the games you mention I think if you check closely they were spread over a number of years and were in completely different areas and had the same fundamental engine. So we could play them and have tournaments and all that stuff for a couple of years at least. Now if they had produced CMBO in 2000 then CMBB in 2001 with a different and improved system and then a new version of CMBO V2 also in 2001 you might well think your comments and work on playing CMBO V1 were being used in the new version. And of course the kicker comes when the patches only work with V2.0! As for CMBN I have not touched it since March I think because I think it very fecked and tediously micro-managing. Hopefuly .......

Its all quite interesting garnering people's reactions. Just to say BF have had $247 from me since March 12 2011 for the CMBN series, and I am not including CMFI. So its not like I am taking cheap shots. I have multiple copies of CMx1 series apart from CMBO and have been playing since 2000 so my interest is not casual. My view is that since March 2010 is we have been involved in a mass playtesting whilst they worked on V2.0 . And it seems a lot of bugs have been teased out with three fixes. Having said that some remain and I have no idea if V2.00 has killed them but judging by the CMFI board certainly HMG's suppressive effects are causing concern. And ammo sharing is bizarre. SO my position is I was a paying playtester for BF on CMBN V1.00 and now I am being asked to pay for the finalised product which is substantially improved over the original. My point of view is no more or less correct than anyone elses. It also may be a minority view but that also does not make it less tenable. If I were in charge of customer relations for BF I would have made more of the amount of man-hours worked required to retro-fit it to the 2011 CMBN version. But the real kicker is I would have charged $10 but given the option for punters to pay the collected sum to BF or to Wikipedia, or Save the Whale. Self interest would have guaranteed BF 99% of the pot but made some people feel they had not been put over a barrel and they had an element of choice. P.S. As to the auto motif I did not introduce it. However as I get multiple reports on the US auto industry I was happy to carry it through. As some poster has concentrated on looking at mandated recalls I should highlight the more relevant non-mechanical side. Perhaps this on Ford trying to put right non-lethal problems - they are not NHTSA mandated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyFord_Touch There is also reputational risk Wikipedia When Ford do sort it out satisfactorily, if ever, but say in 2014 models, they will have the interesting decision as to whether they should make good the 2013's or take the goodwill hit and leave them as lemons for the second hand market. !

Of course talking of choices BF had the choice to use the old engine for CMFI and CMMG so the question might be why was V2 necessary less than 20 months after the launch of CMBN. The reasons are probably BF and many players are not totally happy with V1.1. By making CMFI the defacto standard it is hard not to realise the pressure to pay up - to remain compatible with other players and actually understand the forum comments in future - is immense. One might almost view it as coercion; if you want to remain in the "community" pay up and move to the latest version. I am sure there are lots of benefits on the map-making side, scenarios etc for V2 and so togi is right that work is done and dusted. As most players do not do scenarios, modding, and mapmaking its a moot buying reason. Just to respond to weapons2010 point: You are probably familiar with car recalls in the US where due to faulty design cars are recalled for a better or different part to be fitted. Or on a software note the problems that Ford has had with its electronic dashboards/infotainment system. You do not see Ford suggesting that the new improved system is going to cost owners $10. They bite the bullet and realise that the first iteration was not really up to scratch.

Now you point out the compromises in detail it does seem bizarre not to allow the one thing that logically COULD happen in real life. And to revert to my previous suggestion that only half be available to non-unit infantry you could make the extrapolation that they took prepared ammo that was correct for their weapons. Incidentally, and in danger of setting of a red herring, in the instance of the jeep driver is he not required to act under the orders of a superior officer to his unit officer?

All excellent stuff. Presumably some German sources might tease out a little bit more.

It is rather conceptually stupid and one wonders at the presumed discussions on this feature. If they were worried about some gaming of the system quite possibly you could have an arbitrary rule that the other unit will only provide 50% [?] of what they carry.

Darn good reasons Fernando. I am rather disgusted with myself for forgetting about airplanes. Experience shows as planes got much faster and more robust HMG's were unlikely to cause fatal damage. However at the beginning of the war it no doubt seemed a good idea.

Is it something to do with arming yourself for the last war is a miltary tradition? It makes me smile when you consider the Western Allies have found that their rifles are too short-ranged for the current theatre and had to bring old stock back into action .. " Not long after U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies came to realize that America’s 5.56x45 mm NATO infantry rifles lost most of their lethality beyond 500 meters. Demonstrating their adaptability, the insurgents exploited Afghanistan’s sprawling valleys and distant mountainsides to seek engagements beyond the M16’s and M4’s effective ranges." And yet the M14 was a bust in Vietnam. : ) I am not in aposition to say whether the Germans were right or wrong in their preference for a lot of bullets in a short time. However n terms of practical experience they had more than most with the Spanish Civil War giving them a chance to get an early insight into modern warfare.

JasonC - I agree the ranges are not what one would expect and the targets a laugh but the concept of targeting versus traversing is interesting. And given the speed of a bullet out to say a 1000 metres against reaction times perhaps a patrol would be upright ..... The Bren range is ludicrously short and one at which you would think the eye naturally would be sufficient - however such an improvment at this short range really makes the case for tracer as a sensible addition to a magazine. Shame the amount of tracer was not included either left out by WD or JD Salt. Fernando - thank you for all your posts. Quite an antidote to the YouTube video of the US Army comparing the various weapons. : )

PzKFW - unfortunately the Intelligence Bulletins seem to me to be higher on morale boosting than on fact. Quite understandably but not much use in sorting fact from fiction. With regard to accuracy and killing the War Department did do some paper on unaimed fire versus aimed. To extrapolate to longer range the natural dispersion plus a very small movement by the gunner would provide traversing fire - pinpoint accuracy not really being a benefit. Incidentally the benefit of tracer even at short ranges is interesting and unexpectedly high. "WO 291/473 Performance of bullet weapons. On the matter of relative rate-of-fire of the Bren and MG-42, this paper says "...the advantages of the German gun over the Bren are due almost entirely to the belt feed rather than to the cyclic rate." A trial was conducted to find out, for closely-spaced standing targets, whether "traversing fire" – traversing the gun over an arc without aiming at individual targets – was superior to "service bursts", that is, firing short aimed bursts at individual targets, with the Bren gun. The results tabulated here show the expected number of casualties per 30 seconds' firing: Range (yds) Spacing in feet Service bursts Traversing fire 100 4 9 16 100 8 5 8 200 4 8 12 200 8 5 7 Another trial concerned the relative accuracy of the Bren fired from the hip using ball and tracer ammunition. Firing at fixed targets at 35 yds and moving targets at 17 yds, an improvement averaging 24% was found firing tracer rather than ball." ......

Hey guys what about adding some sort of cutting device on the front so that they can charge through at speed - but not for Axis tanks obviously. : )

Apocal - I suddenly realised that I cannot recall a time being specified for the platoon to successfully put paid to the HMG. Not that it has an immediate relevance to the point being made but it may be of interest when looking at RL accounts or RL test reports. CM tends to be a bit bloodier/compressed than RL.

I am not sure if this is ironic or a genuine plea! A lot of information, as for what is baseline, surely is available from the contemporary studies. I know the War Office data has been mined by J D salt and that it is available. I assume that the US Army and the German Army all did similar work. There may be caveats and changes post test that will be designer calls. Here is to an entertaining link on artillery effectiveness/methods http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/artillery.htm

The rip-off was that the British 3" mortar in RL came with its own Universal carrier. In game you had to buy that also, though at least the ammo supply was a makewight for that omission.

Just to round things off here is an interesting link to a US rifle greande thread. Always nice to find out what really happened with in-action comments compared to the dry figures given in books. The 250 metres figure I quoted previously from Wikipedia looks a tad suspect in practical terms. http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=492997