c3k

I have not tried air in CMBN v3 (err, v2.20). However, MOST, if not ALL, of the air support used in NWE during this timeframe was totally uncoordinated with the ground commander. In the case of big offensives, Ground and Air was coordinated during the planning phase. Heavy bombers were given targets/boxes. The air arm would demand a safety line far away from friendly ground. Ground didn't like that. Ground knows that suppression needs to followed up on, HARD, or all the high explosive is wasted. Air knows how inaccurate "precision" heavy bombers are. Medium bombers were given target types. Specific bridges, etc. Fighter bombers were told "Ground should be near this river. Help 'em out if you see 'em." They'd rove around with NO comms with Ground and shoot up whatever they fancy. Usually they'd hit the enemy. Or haystacks. Or friendlies. Or they'd SAY they hit any of the above. Mostly they'd miss. But when they hit, they made a difference. For a little bit. Swarms of uncoordinated fighters, deconflicted only by pre-planned phase lines. Ground would tell Air, "We're moving up the road to Village-Town. We'll attack at 6 a.m. Give us a hand." At 6 a.m., planes bomb Village-Town. At 6:15 roving fighters zoom about. If Ground breaks through and advanced 5 miles BEYOND Village-Town, well, Air attacks them. That's where the enemy is. That's ignoring map-reading errors. The modern FAC/JTAC party did not exist. Oh "cab-rank"? Okay. ONE, that's "1", singular, solo, individual, air-liaison officer would be up with a corps level offensive. In one of the Caen attacks, the one guy got hit right at the start of the battle. Down with Patton and the oft-cited US air support, it was better, but that's not saying much. Again, one air guy in a tank with an Air radio. (Different freq's, donchaknow. Still have that issue to this day.) One guy. He can only see one thing. The vast majority of CAS were random attacks. Air guy gets briefed in England (or Normandy forward airfield) and then flies a hundred miles or so and looks out his canopy. Smoke, dust? Little moving guys? Tanks? Hey, which way are they pointed? Hmm, I'm gonna light 'em up!! Talley-Ho! Okay, back to base. Whiskey, and chasing the Nafta girls. There is a reason why so much time, money, and effort have been sunk into improving air-ground coordination. Trying to get the guy in a hole in the ground, crawling under fire, pelted with dirt, nose in the mud, to coordinate with a guy who woke up in a rack a hundred miles away and just whizzed by at hundreds of miles per hour, is a difficult problem. A =lot= of Ground did not want Air anywhere near their men. That's all on the attack. When Ground is dug in, a LOT of the deconfliction problems solve themselves. "We are in Village-Town. The enemy is outside the town." Air shoots anything outside Village-Town. Ground is happy. Ken

No, a toggle, enabled by the player, to PICK the language that all the forces will use. I like the immersion of the native tongue. I don't like not knowing what my men are saying. So far, I think "dvai" means to "hurry forward and die". My Germans are always yelling "sani". I guess they like sanitary conditions and abhor the muck. The ones yelling it are frequently the laggards who stop fighting. A toggle. That's all I want.

- Persistent map damage. - Importable maps. - Ability to edit imported maps. - Importable units. (Save that depleted company, after the battle is over, into a file.) - Ability to "tweak" imported units. (That saved company? Re-ammo, and replace casualties. Or weaken them further.) - "slicker" UI (see how vague that is? ) - "Killed by" stat at end of game. (Click on a dead unit and see which enemy got him.) - Translator: put the tres cool foreign voices into English (or other home language). I can now go to Germany and either order zwei bier, bitte or call for spotting rounds. - Hand-to-Hand combat. Better bayonets. 'Nuff said. Those are my quick, cup of coffee at the café table, ideas. As for new families/modules: - Early WWII; France and Poland would be very interesting. Fear the mighty 3.7cm! - China vs., well, a lot. I can see them going up against Russia, Australia, Vietnam, and the US assisting. That'll be the big one. - Space Lobsters. Go read Neal Asher. - Patton attacks the Fulda Gap - Remake CMSF (this would also allow coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan). - Something major which would then allow a minor pack to be released which would cover the Falklands/Malvinas land battles. - Zombie apocalypse. De rigueur. Ken

Agreed: great game, way underweighted.

I agree completely!!!!!!!!!!! You definitely need to let Norton know how they are failing their customers. No one should have to put up with such faulty software!!! And you PAID for it!!! I used Norton, oh, many years ago. You know, when it was good. Pre-millennium or so. Now, as you've discovered, it controls your computer. I've used the SAME installation software for the game that you're using. Yet, I don't have the problems you've mentioned. Either our hardware is very different, or the OTHER software is causing an issue. I vote "Norton". Good luck. Sincerely. Open a ticket with Norton. Open a ticket with BFC (help desk). One of them will get you up and running. (Guess which one I think it will be?) Ken

I doff my cap to Pelican Pal. If my wife (the one who beat Bil Hardenberger while she sat there drinking her white wine) EVER mentions my modest game collection in a non-complimentary manner, I'll simply refer her to PP's post. She will then thank me for my self-control. Thank you, PP.

CMUT: Combat Mission Uber Tanks ("Smut"). Because it sounds cool...

Nice summation.

Your initial post shows that you think there is a problem. Ok, maybe there is. Maybe not. There is absolutely no need or expectation that you do anything about it. In fact, creating a thread about it is a service towards improving the game. Thank you. However...without savegames or screenshots, it will be more difficult for us (beta testers) to dig into it and present it to BFC for a change. (Assuming we verify the issue.) Can you provide more detail about what occurred? What, about that instance, do you think is wrong, and why?

Use it to SMOTHER enemy troops lying in a trench! The only weakness is if they have bayonets or flamethrowers...

Hobo, Thanks for the check. I just went to the website. A new buyer who wants it all at the cheapest rate has these prices: CMBN everything to v2.12: $95 CMFI everything to v1.12: $75 CMRT: $55 CMBN v3: $10 CMFI v3: $10 So...CMBN to v3= $105. CMFI v3= $85 All up, every enchilada, $245. If that's too steep for someone, a full base game can be had for $35. How long between $10 upgrades (or more, if they're bigger)? About a year? As the families expand, the number of games that can be upgraded will, of course, increase. You may very well be right that the total cost of upgrades will exceed $100. But only to upgrade multiple games over multiple years. I hesitate to add up how much I've spent on coffee over multiple years. Ken

^^^ LOL! I've run all sorts of cards, going back over 20 years. (Or more. ) EVERY card manufacturer has issues. AMD and Nvidia are both good. Shop, read reviews, discard the obvious flamebait and fanbois, and buy what works for you. Ken

I understand (I think). You're saying you want ONE price shown for the current/latest version of the game. Easy: $65. Now, some say they are short of cash and can't afford the $10 for the upgrade. Cool. They have a great game for $55. See? More price points! The upgrade JUST came out. Of course there'll be a bit of a period when it will be an add-on. Look at the v2 history. It came as an upgrade to v1. Now, you get v2 as the base. Guess what'll happen in the future? Ken Edited due to crosspost. If you REALLY thing add-on content should be free to you, then you're living in a dystopian dream world. Really. There are MANY posts/threads about the reasons for upgrades to cost money while patches are free. Check bobo's "whining" thread. It's unfraying somewhere around here...

Gobsmacked.

Umm, isn't that amazingly close to the German doctrine?

Thanks for doing such a superb DAR!

Oh, just for giggles, I saw a video this morning. A famously good shooter used a 9mm revolver to shoot at a balloon. Off hand (meaning he just stood there and held the gun out; no support.) It took him 2 shots to hit it. The 9mm parabellum is obviously less accurate than a rifle cartridge. Oh, wait. It took him 2 shots, with a 6" barrel, to hit a balloon AT 1,000 METERS!!! If that doesn't impress you, you need to find another hobby. Go. There is NO accuracy benefit to one round or another. The ability to fire a round with a predictable path is important. THAT leads to repetition. THAT leads to accuracy. The burst from an auto weapon throws off round number 2. Round number 1 still goes where the weapon is aimed. A 9mm revolver, 2 shots, 6" barrel, 1,000 meters. (Maybe yards.) Wow. JasonC, I'm gonna give him my SMG to go up against you and your bolt rifle. Ken

JasonC, You threw a few strawmen into your last post. Given the same prone, supported fire position, the same incoming, and the same targets, at what range are bolt rifles more accurate than SMG's? (Effective accuracy, meaning a shooter hits his target. I don't care if the smg hits with the first bullet and the next 10 miss. Trigger pull=hit?) At what range are they equivalent? At 400m, I don't think there's any doubt that the bolt has more potential and actual accuracy. Accuracy is NOT effectiveness.

How would your rifle range scenario srand up if we each brought 10 friends? All yours have bolt actions, all mine have smgs? Adrenaline does amazing things to aimed fire. Personally, I -think- more dispersion from full auto fire would be more realistic. I am not convinced that the technical solution you presented is altogether correct. Nor am I convinced that bolt action ineffectiveness in-game is unwarranted. I am fully capable of great shooting on a range. I have also been amazed at how poorly I fared in adrenaline laced shooting houses. One is far different than the other. Combat shooting and range shooting only have the firearm in common. The current CM battlefield has a lot of lethality and suppression. There is a reason why no military fields bolt action rifles to line soldiers.

I'm not a tech support guy, but I'm curious if you tried to double-click on the file yet? It may be a self-extracting installer. There IS a forum for tech help, you may want to post there to get better/faster help. And, welcome to the addiction... Ken

CW expense: perhaps it reflects what BFC thinks they put into it? Tank for tank, model count, TO&E expansion, campaigns, editor upgrades are all "heavier" than that which went into MG? Trailblazer module took more initial work than follow on modules? Or, BFC thinks the CW market can leverage more cash out of the exploited consumer class than it can with MG?

I go to a restaurant. They only sell hamburgers. I order one. It is good. Later, they expand their menu. Now they serve hamburgers AND steak. I am outraged when they refuse to give me a free steak! After all, didn't I already pay for what they served?

Bah. Only if you believe BLS inflation stats.

Sycophantic defense rush to follow! Forgive me for not breaking out the relevant parts of your quote, but I'm using my phone. It is difficult. Niche products should result in cutthroat competition, not monopoly. BFC has established itself as the milsim/gaming house par excellence. Others approach, but do not meet, tbe same threshold. (Granted, less "sim" and more "game" may appeal. Look at CoH.) Why have others not tried to get BFC's market base? Cost: I don't care what it is. I do care about player base and BFC longevity. Of BFC goes the way of the dodo, who will make/support these games? Now, does cost prohibit the expansion of the player base, or is it limited by the game subject manner or the very design? The learning curve is steep. If CMBN retailed for $5, would more people buy it? (Flipping it, does $50 prevent new playes?) Would the putative increase in player base offset the reduced price? Literally, that is BFC's business. I hope they get it right. The demo is free. Base game gets you in. Modules feed the addiction. You get to choose your price point. Pay for patches? Really? That's needlessly inflammatory as well as factually incorrect. Patches, which fix bugs, are free. Upgrades, which add functionality, cost money. Dream world: BFC keeps making free CM games which auto update and are required playing in all schools to give everyone a chance to play and sign up on the free opponent finder service. And unicorns prance in joy. End sycophantic defense rush. Ken