sfhand

So you didn't/don't enjoy playing CMBN v1. I get it. But you were'nt a guinea pig by any stretch of the imagination, so please get off the cross... we need the wood. In the future you could wait until you've tried the demo before buying since you can't seem to see your part in this and instead view yourself as a victim of BF.

Not sure if it was in v1.11, but <alt-b> is certainly helpful in the wee hours...

I'm more than willing to pay more for the upgrades if that is necessary to keep upgrades as an option. As noted, it is exceptional that an upgrade is being offered at all, much less for the pittance required. And Steve, thanks for stopping by Hopefully your new announcement comes sooner rather than later.

I just started up a pbem game using the Huzzar! scenario and after plotting my initial movement orders I am very happy with movable waypoints. I had forgotten how useful that feature was, but I am really thankful BF got them back in the game. I tried the target briefly command on a 2" mortar in the 18 platoon CW scenario last night but unfortunately the mortar operator kept cowering (while his two mates were fine) so I can't report on it. I like the idea of that command, especially for on map mortars with small allotments of ammo. Visually, I didn't notice any bad shadowing and the shader toggle worked as advertised in Windows 7 x64. edit: Wicky got in there with most of my points while I was fumbling around the keyboard... good show mate!

For me this is really simple... either I think paying the upgrade fee sucks and I don't buy the upgrade OR I think the idea of upgrading earlier versions to the most advanced engine state is an awesome idea and I buy the upgrade... I see no reason for the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Fortunately, the folks at BF seem committed to providing those who wish to keep their games up to date, feature wise, the opportunity to do so. They didn't have to do this. As a non-grog gamer I can tell you that it is almost unheard of, e.g., Call of Duty series, which is one of the most popular game series ever sold yet never offers a free engine update to allow earlier versions to be played with the improved features of the most current. And, I've never read one complaint about it (maybe I'm living under a rock). So, as one who considers BF customers lucky to have the upgrade option, I don't mind the complaining because I know it will have no effect on BF's business choices and BF has a history of making sure its customers get value for their money. Even when things don't go well they hang in there and make the game right - the effort put into CMSF after release was extraordinary (based on results not first hand knowledge). Sure they are in business to make money but I really believe that making a good game is vastly more important to them than milking their customers out of a little extra cash.

CMBN v2.0 has lynx available in QB setup

I looked for it again in the QB editor under all 3 German force options selecting the month of August and using 'single vehicle' rather than 'formation' to no avail...

I am still unable to find it after 1.11 patch in QB editor...

I'm guessing we'll see it after winter weather and fire...

This has been a very uplifting thread... thanks BF and all those who toil behind the scenes to make this possible.

Got a save game for people to look at? Shoot an email to sfhand at gmail.com and I'll send you a dropbox invite for the file if it is available.

I don't expect any pre-announcement of the CMBN patch - the final patch for the v1 engine? The v2 update is uncharted territory, but I'm assuming no pre-announcement there either. I'm surprised no word or screenies of MG yet which probably means it's still months away... but I don't really remember how the CW module played out 'cause I'm getting old and suffer from CRS.

One of my most enjoyable CMBO moments came when my bazooka team fired on an enemy tank from within a building. The shot missed the tank and set the building on fire. The bazooka team was forced to leave the burning building and was mercilessly cut down by the tank. I don't know about the historical accuracy question, but the entertainment factor was quite high, I was laughing very hard even though it was my guys dying...

blah blah blah... double post

I've run CMBN on a laptop and a desktop (which has undergone various significant hardware changes since the CMBN release) and I have never thought the camera controls to be clunky. I will say that when I first started playing CMSF i noticed a difference between its camera control and CMx1's and since I had years of playing CMx1 under my belt I felt uncomfortable with the way the camera reacted in CMx2. It has only been within the last year that I've become aware of using the right mouse button to pan. As one who has played FPS's (high level play is dependent on precise camera control on all axes) for decades I tend to use the keyboard for much of my camera movement (I am incorporating the mouse - er, trackball in my case - into my camera movement scheme). In terms of playing FPS's at a high level, when I switched to a trackball there was a bio-mechanical learning curve. When I switched from a thumb controlled trackball to a finger controlled one there was a learning curve. For me, the learning curve from CMx1 to CMx2 was minor compared to this. I also really believe that it is a problem for some. According to Steve there will be new control options added in the future, which I hope solves the issue for those who don't like the current schemes. In the interim I hope those who are affected can wrap their heads around the fact that just because it is a problem for them doesn't mean it is a problem for everyone, or the majority, or even a significant portion of the player base. As forum using customers, we have no way of knowing how big of a problem it is for the player base, but we can deduce that since BF is addressing it they consider it to be a significant obstacle for enough players to warrant changing the scheme before they add other wanted features.

Yes, you need to contact the BF support desk to do it.

I would download and play the heck out of the demo's until CMBN MG module is released. I would do it this way because there will be much more content available (including new terrain) at that time should I decide I can afford to buy the title and both modules (close to the same cost as 2 titles). Couple the savings on the upgrade with a potential title + module bundle and a person operating on a budget might see enough of a savings to pull the trigger on making a purchase that is larger than just buying the title. Then, while I'm playing CMBN + CW + MG I'm saving up for CMFI + module or CMSF2 or CMEF and I'm in no rush due to all the content. But the main reason I'm buying CMBN is the awesome Carentan scenario created by undercovergeek, (currently h2h only?). This is one of if not the best pbem scenarios I've ever played (and I'm playing from my least preferred side). It has been edge of the seat stuff from turn 1.

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm a freak, but I consider CMSF2 an east front game because it has Russians in it...

Dude... I'm not selling anything. When I posted I was thinking about the way I drive. I rarely drive WOT, which is what I think fast represents, and I certainly wouldn't drive WOT going from off-road to road even though I drive a "rally car" which I'm sure handles a lot better than a tank in terms of oversteer (at least that is what I have tuned the suspension for). Since CMSF I have made a habit of slowing down for curves (in game). But I am wondering, if you've only experienced this once why are you including it in your thread about oversteer? You seem to have just acknowledged it is an outlier.

It doesn't look like it ever got established on the road... it looks, to me, like it blew through the road (travelling too fast to make the turn?) and proceeded to the next waypoint from its new off road position. I use move for this type of change in direction.

Sure, there are times when I'm frustrated by the spotting in game. What helps me deal with it (I basically only play h2h... <when I have turns waiting>) is this: http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9757 One of the great things about CMxX is that a re-cooking of any turn will most likely result in different outcomes across the battlefield.

You see... we can't even agree on what passive aggressive is. For you it's when someone retracts their plan to assess a situation once they realize their efforts would not solve the "issue" at hand for many. For me it's when you say you had different and better results than someone else and they say it's because your opponent sucks (funny, he had no problems tearing me up in Carbide, Carbide). The map that started this thread off, with a VL in a deployment zone, is clearly broken as a ME map. The other one we've been discussing is in no-where-near the same condition. I would urge the removal of one axis setup zone while you would remove it from the list of ME maps. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying there is no way you will be happy with the results of me looking at every map and sending a list to sdp for his consideration. I also qualified myself as rather laid back in my approach to this situation (trim the nail rather than cut off the finger) and urged those who would be more "rigid" in their approach to step up.

Well, based on the apparently huge gap between what I think is a reasonable ME map and some others here I see little reason for me to follow through with my plans to look at the setup zones and VL's on the QB maps.

That's funny because that wasn't/isn't my experience of it at all. As I wrote earlier, the only fire I took advancing was flanking fire and the only change I would consider is eliminating the axis deployment zone that is on the far left of the posted screenshot to solve that problem. BTW, My guys were in position to move into the town after 3 turns had I chosen to put up a smoke screen. However, there are other ways into town that I am taking advantage of now and I have established a toe-hold with over an hour to go. And... none of my troops were fired on while in the setup zone. Have you played the scenario? If so, as allied? If so, what was your approach? One last thing, when I preview a map I don't do it in the editor, so I had no idea where the axis deployment zones were and I was very surprised to find one on an adjacent map edge. Since, I only lost 4-5 guys to the flanking fire I don't consider it a big deal. The grille firing on my MG support positions was a far bigger problem than getting my guys into position.

I'm currently playing it as US, it is a bit lopsided, but not horribly so, IMHO. The one thing I'd change is I'd get rid of the 3rd axis deployment zone (the one on its own side of the map), my opponent not only took the town early but he got in some flanking fire on my advance... this map also has 2 (all I've spotted so far, mainly because I'm not in town yet) multi-story buildings with the "missing" upper floor. But, as I said earlier, I'm pretty laid back about this type of thing, when I look at the maps I'm going to be looking for the ones with the VL's in the deployment zones. Oh, and one thing I did to compensate for the VL being so close to the axis deployment is I extended the time of the battle. If a person is all about winning and not tactical gameplay then large bore artillery would be an easy solution to this map's asymmetry - yes, I preview the maps before I play them.