The_Capt

Damn, well did make it in then. Well we will have to get it next time. The force composition on the ground is accurate, or at least how we designed it.

And you just have the Air Controller?

And you have done well...now you must be punished. Bil and I came up in a different time..

Yep, patch just came out and it should be fixed. (let me know if it is not).

Ah yes, that is a typo we fixed for v1.03 (the patch upcoming). The "problem" is that you won Msn 2 and are on the victory track. We spread the FOs out to provide a challenge to...well those who demonstrate they need it, so you should get that FO in the first wave of reinforcements. If you had lost Msn 2, you would have gotten both up front. We updated the briefings to reflect because this one is inaccurate. Everything else should be as per the brief.

Meh, agree to disagree. Maybe with CMx3. The role of the GFC could be modeled very well in a tactical wargame like CM but your point is valid for the current engine. It would be very nice for the player to be able to plan insertion/extraction and effectively manage a SOF campaign, manage resources and C4ISR, all the stuff that really matters.

Not entirely correct, CM could model it but we would have to rescope the size of squads and what a "platoon" means. TacAI would need some serious upgrades as would spotting and urban combat etc, but modeling a SOTF linked and able to carry out Direct Actions is doable. If you look as CMCW, Direction Found is basically in the ballpark. We would have to build an entirely new support layer but the bones are already in the mix across the titles. There would be a bill to model new tech and how its mechanics work but again not impossible. The biggest weakness to the argument is not that it could not be done in CM, it is how do you make it anything not repetitious to the point of boredom? How many HVT missions can you do before they all start to be the same? You could do some SW type stuff with partner forces which might be interesting but in CM it would probably be not that different from what is already there. They make good Hollywood scripts but as a wargame, not so sure.

I encourage people to play The Citadel...and I apologize in advance.

Welcome to war in the 21st century. Billion dollar platforms firing million dollar weapons at 50$ targets.

Ok, ok, everyone settle down. My shot at dpsapps was more tongue in cheek because we have a long history with each other. Sad Sack as in attitude, not performance to be clear. This has no connection to GFs performance, which is pretty well done from my point of view, and I designed and built the campaign (warts and all). Now Everybody Love Everybody.

Oh dbsapp you really are the Pvt Sad Sack of CMCW. Let's see how Grey_Fox does as he is really acing the campaign so far. Msn 3 is tough, maybe the toughest of the campaign. You have the lowliest MRB of the MRR up against stacked odds. Good news is that on the Standard Campaign if you lose you still get a shot at Msn 4. And on March or Die we did tweak it.

As I understand it organic air assets get rolled directly into fire planning and have direct contact with troops on the ground for coordination of fires but someone who has served in this type pf organization would have to step in here. In my personal experience, air showed up much like arty and had to be walked onto the target by someone who knew what they were doing, they were not baked in...but when the showed up, it was worth it. Exception was UAVs but they were also linked back to a JTAC/controller, we did not talk directly to the drivers. But response times and feedback was definitely more intimate.

Wow, well thank you very much. I cannot tell you how rewarding it is to have someone get true enjoyment out of our little game. Well now I am thinking about a campaign of the small, your words have moved me. Let me think about that but I may see an opportunity.

Yep that tracks. So people may wonder why modern soldiers have all those mags, the min is 10, about 300 rounds per soldier (don’t care what the manual says), reason is that gives you about 20 mins ability to sustain a reasonable amount of fire downrange. After 20 mins you start getting worried ammo-wise, but by then support should be on top of you. A good JTAC can coordinate air and guns so you normally get guns first and then CAS will come in and finish the job. So basically 15-20 minute wait times are totally realistic. Only thing faster is UAVs on station on top of you, then you are talking target hand off (but they often see it before guys on the ground do) and time of flight. Now this is modern dedicated guns vs uncons scenarios. In a large stand up fight more guns means more coordination etc. Short answer to OP is “cause that is how long it takes”.

Hey it was a fair question and you are a paying customer. I think that an engine upgrade in the works might make the game UI a lot more accessible. Content-wise it will remain up to the title leads. In a perfect world the player would be able to be more specific in the settings (Iron to Basic are good but not really customizable) and maybe even tailor AI difficulty...it is pretty much set to "kill all humans" right now.

Heh, I see a mix of concern, hope and schadenfreude when I skim other boards (and sometime in here) on this topic. The answer, in so far as to what I can say is likely "no", we are not on the margins. Our popularity is quite strong compared to our initial estimates, a little surprising to be honest, and healthy enough to get us the green light for a DLC. We won't have wide distribution details for some time but the support on the BFC release alone was enough to make us happy.

I was more going with "Type A, hyper-focused, micro-management loving masochists" but hey your definition pretty much matches.

I can't speak for BFC writ large but we thought long and hard on this for CMCW. So we knew that CMCW was never going to go "mainstream". CM is a niche within a niche to begin with, and the Cold War is a niche within the Modern titles within that. So how much accessibility do we really need? It wasn't zero, hence why we built the NTC and Soviet Training scenarios. But our main audience were those hyper-realism hardcore players that want the "real deal". And by that, I mean scenarios and campaigns pulled directly from doctrine. This war never happened so we cannot play directly from the history books, so instead we need to lean on doctrine from both sides and realistically try and portray what "would have happened". With that Vision, it really became central to our design moving forward and everything else fell into place or out of the way. I rarely thought about "play balance" to be honest. I looked at the ground, the likely forces on that ground and built what made military sense based on the doctrine of both sides. It is why we needed larger maps and likely do not have enough small or tiny battles, because neither side thought in terms of platoon actions. We did use our imaginations and build in some but a Cold War game focused a the platoon level is simply inaccurate. A Soviet campaign at the company level does not make a lot of sense either. So bigger and harder was the direction we were pulled in. Did we sacrifice accessibility, yes I think we did but it was worth it in our opinion. Hopefully we will get some new blood that does stick around but they also probably would have gotten bored quickly if we had made it more gamey. The player who loves CM is a "type", we have learned that much. Connecting the game to that type and helping it stick is the challenge. So welcome all "noobs" but you have been warned, you are going to have to earn your wins in CMCW. The designers, like the game are old-school, we only hope that when you do succeed you feel it was all worth it; we don't want players to turn away when it gets difficult, we want that to be the reason they stay.

Hey folks, thanks for the support - yes, even you @dbsapp All reviews are taken with a grain of salt. Steam is pretty good if one looks at all the reviews (about 86% positive) and these are early days. As to the issues, well they are well known and big reason for the push to CMx3. That said, CM will likely always be the Dwarf Fortress of the wargaming community with a dedicated following of people who really love the game but still a niche for the hardcore. We are doing fine as far as I know - game sales once they go on multiple distribution platforms is a labyrinth- and the BFC Modern Titles group is becoming a real thing with the Superpack release (that CM modern meta-verse idea is really sticking in my head). Again, big thanks to the biggest bunch of hardcore and salty grognards the industry has ever seen in supporting us so far.

Did you try turning them back on? Maybe the GPU wants the work? (What I don’t know about GPUs…)

Funny you should mention it. We have chosen the demos and have pushed to higher HQ. Timeline to putting them out? I will ask.

The only other thing I have heard is AA as an issue for some. You should definitely contact BFCElvis on this on the support thread.

Oh, and the default setup will get you through the scenario. Not optimal in the least but you will be on a strong enough footing to win that scenario. We would much prefer to get to the bottom of this (seemingly) random lag issue for some players though.

I really wish we could get to the bottom of this one. It seems to be happening with few players but is still happening. I built, tested and run that scenario on a whole lot less computer than yours (7th Gen i7, 1050GTX mobile, 16G RAM). You should make sure that your graphics card is running the game and not the integrated chipset, that seems to happen the most often. If that is not the case then you should definitely put in a support report to BFC or go to the Tech Support thread.

AT-4 are working fine, checked. It is you (why, is it always you?) Would very much like to see that 4km shot.