Doug Williams

Didn't notice the "winky" in my post, eh? Obviously no Steam employee. They wouldn't have been that obnoxious.

Yes, and his name is m0317624. Jeez, Steam. Hire someone who can pick better forum names. ;-) Well, even if he's not a Steam employee, it's interesting to watch him try to "educate" Steve.

Good point there. If you want to get the pulse of a game community go to the developer's forums, not some third party distributor.

This thread has gone the way of all the previous Steam threads.....poorly. The common theme is new forum members, who may or may not actually play Combat Mission, come on here and try to convince BFC that they are fools for not having Combat Mission on Steam. Forum members who have been buying the Combat Mission series for many years understandably respond in a negative fashion (whether or not they actually use Steam) to these know-it-all new forum members. The new forum members are offended that anyone dares to question them, and arguments fly. On occasion, BFC (in the form of Steve) will make a post or two describing why they aren't interested in participating in Steam at this time. Eventually, the thread gets locked. In the meantime, the thread gets many views, in the same way that a roadside traffic accident gets gawked at by rubberneckers. As for me, as I stated earlier, I really don't care if Combat Mission is on Steam or not. I buy games on Steam, and I buy games that aren't on Steam. If I want to buy and play a game, it makes little difference to me if it is on Steam.

Bottom line, boys. BFC knows it's customer base, and WE DON'T CARE if CM is on Steam or not.

Good point, Michael.

Nah, you are probably around 18-25 years old, at the most. You are new here, and, like many noobs who think too highly of themselves, you come on here claiming vast knowledge and experience in computer game development and marketing, and try to "help" BFC make correct marketing decisions based on your extensive knowledge of the current PC game market. You are mistaken. No one on here really cares about your opinion of how BFC should run their company, Junior Member M0317624. Good luck convincing us, and BFC, otherwise. :-)

Wow, you seem to have a lot of experience. Been around a while, have you? Before you answer, realize that many of us were buying our first games on 5 1/4" floppies, and that BFC has been successful since, what, 2000?

Neither am I. Still could be a problem......

Justin Bieber is Canadian. Nuff said. ;-)

I don't care one way or the other. I buy games on Steam, I buy games outside of Steam. For someone to say that they won't buy a game outside of Steam strikes me as ludicrous. If I want to buy and play a game, I'm going to do it whether it's on Steam or not.

Yes, I would say the most we will see for CMBN in the future is perhaps another pack. That's just a guess, as there is no way I'm going to sift back in time through the forums to try to find what Steve said way back when.

That's a good point. I'm not sure how it could be properly handled, but then I'm not a programmer (well, I did a bit of BASIC back in 1984ish).

Sorry, I don't fly anymore. Too many planes winding up at the bottom of the ocean lately. Please accept my apology for besmirching the honor of Illarionovich something-or-other. ;-)

Borg, plenty of tournaments in WeBoB. http://webandofbrothers.de/

Nah, PBEM is mano-a-mano. Perhaps someday BFC will implement multi player PBEMs. Thanks though, Borg. ;-)

Oh, really? Well, I choose....hell, I dunno. Anyone want to be my second? Since I am the challenged, I get to choose the battleground. CMBN 3.11. Small meeting engagement. Computer pick map, Village, Holland. Mixed VS Mixed, Germans VS USA. Standard rarity. September 1944, day, Hazy. You choose if you want Krauts or Yanks. Fun stuff, boys! :-)

As witty and amusing as this thread has become, and though I doubt I will ever tire of seeing Childress's effeminate avatar, I would cast my vote for some sort of melee combat simulation in Combat Mission, even it it is via casualties only...no animations needed. Some things CM1 did better.

Agreed. The more realistic effectiveness of AT/Inf guns helps to make defending in an Attack/Probe QB more enjoyable against a human opponent, IMO.

Yes, they are better (and I'm not talking about the anomaly that Artofwar described).....perhaps Engine 3.0 was the beginning? IMO, they are actually worth purchasing in a QB now, if you are defending, and especially if you buy some sandbag walls to protect them. Before 3.0 I hardly ever bought them. They were, IMO, too fragile and slow. Now they are pretty good...more like what I imagine they were in real life.

Apologies if this has been discussed before. Has anyone else noticed that antitank and infantry guns seem to be performing much better recently? I cannot pinpoint when I first noticed this, but I am very grateful for it. Before the improvements, I seldom purchased AT/Inf guns in a QB, because the "points VS usefulness" ratio was terrible. This seems to have changed in the last few....weeks/months? Now, in CMBN 3.11, AT/Inf guns seem to be worth their points cost.....a welcome improvement, IMO.

I guess that basically describes me. I did not play CMSF (other than briefly playing the demo and not liking it), but I do plan to purchase CMBS. Yes, I play the hell out of CMBN/FI/RT. We'll see how I handle the culture shock of the new tech.

That's one bad ass video, Childress. :-)

I agree that it would be nice if melee combat were simulated by the game. It was in CM1. No need for animations, just some sound effects (and casualties) would be nice.