Rocky Balboa

I hear what your saying and I hope your correct .... I agree, not having the right tool can make it harder and more time consuming to do a task. However, from personal experience I also know having too many tools or options can also increase the time it takes as well. For example having 16 groups instead of 8 groups gives the developer more options, however if he decides to use 12 groups in his AI plan then that's 4 more groups that he has to code plans for that he didn't have to when he was only limited by 8. And of course adding code for 4 more groups will take additional time to code. Now with all this being said I would rather have a full tool kit whenever I go to do any Job because there are some tools that are very specialized and are priceless to have in certain situations. I guess its a matter of the scenario designers being disciplined enough to know what tools to use and when.

I always hate it when my weasel springs a leak

Since CMFI will give AI designers the ability to create 16 groups instead of 8, what kind of impact will this have on the number of Scenarios/QB that will be included with the game?

Agree +1. The addition of triggers to the AI toolbox could potentially give scenario designers the ability to create a "Smarter" AI experience but there is a price that goes along with that. The price to be paid is probably fewer scenarios / QB's and shorter campaigns will be shipped with the base game and Modules ...

+1 On this point .... Had BF done what the other developers do they would probably make more money by just refusing to offer an sort of an upgrade and forcing everyone to pay full boat for the new version ... The way it is now, there is no added incentive for someone to buy CMFI (unless you just like that theater). Now, you can just pay $10 to upgrade CMBN and keep playing it with all the latest bells and whistles .... What a sweet deal, for me ... Thanks BF !!!

On the issues with MP, I don't personally have a problem with MP in the game and I generally consider it to be the best way to play CM because the AI does need some improvements but the reason I don't do MP often is because I just don't have the time or can't commit the time to it. When I agree to play someone, I feel like I'm obligated to make so many turns in a certain period of time and I just have a problem making that commitment. Maybe that makes me a charter member of the old farts club ....

I'm not sure they could just port the textures from CMFI over to CMBN. After looking at the screens in the AAR's, I believe there are quite a few differences in the textures between the two games ... models and animations of course would port ...

I think what BF is doing with this pricing structure is absolutely freaking awesome. I can’t think of any game publishers that are offering an option to bring your old version up to date with the latest version. In most every case the new version comes with new content and new features (as well as fixes to the engine) but you are forced to pay full price to buy the latest installment and the previous version never gets updated to the current version with all the new enhancements and features. The only time you see stuff like this is in the free to play space but they still charge you for the updates by making you buy extra units or added features and the cost of those incremental charges covers the cost of the update. BF has sort of created their own version of the F2P scheme but your never forced to buy anything if you don’t want to. Here’s a suggestion to BF so take it for what its worth. I know MP is not the central focus of CM but if you can figure out some way to make it more of a central focus then I think this will pay off. More people will upgrade and buy modules when they discover they have to upgrade and add more modules in order to play online with others. This means things like Coop play and even possibly ..... dare I even say it .... a campaign layer might make things interesting for you guys ....

Just noticed the upgrade price announcement .... $10.00 !!! – Phfffffffft I’ll take two

I happen to agree with you on this point wholeheartedly. If BF would allow us to start up the binary with command line options such as ... [save game to load for PBEM] or [ip & port for online MP], then the community could build thier own MP lobby as well as some other features that would enhance the player experience .... I would pay for a 3.0 upgrade just to have this feature alone ....

Please MD, some of these blokes are confused enough already ... Now you'll have them actually looking for health crystals and waterfalls in 2.0

You say you want more RT opponents but arent able to find them. Do you think that's because their isnt some formal lobby and thats why you can't find anyone to play with? Have you stopped to think that maybe their just isnt enough people who want to play RT online? I know I don't play RT online... PBEM is more my style, I'm sorry but that's the way I pefer to play MP but to be honest most of the time I play single player. Is any of this BF's fault? Of course not, they have done an admirable job of catering the game to multiple play styles. BF is a small company they have to be very careful what they spend their time on because time equates to $ in their world. Maybe a young guy like you doesn't understand that yet but its a fact of life, BF is a business that must make a profit or they go out of business.

I'll tell you what must be frustrating. It must be frustrating for BF to support their product and add features that their customers have asked for (Like enhanced online RT play and movable waypoints and many other features) and still have people show up and rant and rave that they are not doing enough ... That's got to be frustrating ....

Dude, just take a deep breath and actually listen to what you are saying ... That's exactly what BF is doing they are making the game better ... they are adding features (like pausable online RT play among others). Are they just not adding features fast enough for you? Earlier you said this: If this is all you want then you have that now. There are several clubs out there that have thier own websites that will let you setup MP match ups. All you have to do is register and post. We have a steam group that has 145 members that you can join and hook up with other CM fans. If you post politely on this forum looking for a match I'm sure you will get several responses. If all you want is a place to exchange IP's then you have that today. I really don't see your problem, everything you are railing against is currently available and BF is supporting their product ... So what is it really thats bothering you or are you just wanting to troll and argue?

I don't think BF said they were charging for patches. The upgrades they are charging for are new features. A patch would be a fix to an existing part of the game that's not working as intended. I know its a fine line to walk in some situations because we all have an opinion on what should have been included in the original game and we even can question what existing features are working as intended. An example of this is an improvement to an existing feature, is this a fix or an upgrade? At the end of the day we all have to determine perceived value vs $. I trust that BF is making an honest effort to provide value to their customers while at the same time putting together a business model that keeps them in business. If at some point I don't feel like I'm getting adequate value for the $ I'm spending then I'll stop buying. So I respect the OP's right to make that decision even though I don't agree with his rant .. The alternative is BF not being able to stay in business and that would be a sad day indeed.

Maybe you should demand that they give you the 2012 model with all the upgrades for free just because you bought the 2011 model?

I think what the OP and others need to realize is that BF is a small company and this is a very small niche market. To be honest there are not very many games out there that I have spent as much time as I have playing this one. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade and you still have what you paid your money for, you can keep playing it for as long as you want without spending another dime. Me personally, I don't mind spending $40.00 every 6 months or so to stay current and to keep adding new content for a game that I really enjoy. What does that come out to monthly? $6-$7 US? Wow I spend that much on a single lunch and some places charge that for a cup of what they call coffee .... Heck I spend ~$80.00 a month for satellite TV and still can't find anything to watch 90% of the time.

Yes, I would agree for targeting purposes this is the issue, sometimes you might be able to see the ground but not the target or you might be able to see the target but not the ground. However for the purpose of giving the player a better idea of how the terrain is rising or falling, where the possible depressions in the terrain might be. Wouldn't some variation of the current LOS/targeting tool work for this? (Example ... One click or key-press shows all the squares that the selected unit can see... all the other squares are greyed out or subdued in some way.) Something like this would allow me to see at a glance where those depressions are. I would also be able to tell if the ground was rising or falling in front of me because at some point I wouldn't be able to see past the crest of a hill. Maybe I'm playing the game wrong but I use the current targeting/LOS tool a lot not just for targeting but also to see where those dead areas are. Of course this also becomes a problem in that I spend a lot of time with the current tool just trying to figure out the terrain. I know it's perhaps not the optimal solution but based on Steve's post from above it sounds like even a suboptimal solution might be better than none at all or what we have.

Contour lines would be ideal but only if they could be toggled otherwise I think they would make the map too cluttered not to mention the performance hit the system would take. This is why I mentioned an enhanced LOS tool that would essentially work like the current LOS tool but show me at a glance all the squares on the map that a unit can see from a certain location. This way I get the benefit of the LOS tool without having to manually check LOS in every direction just to get a feel for what the terrain is doing. The benefits of enhancing the current LOS tool is that the base code for the tool is already in place. In addition to showing the relief and contour of the map or a portion of the map at a glance, I believe it could also speed up game play. The downside of going this route of course would be the possible performance hit you would take to gather this much information all at once. If you guys feel that drawing contour lines on the fly is a possible solution but causes too big of a performance hit, have you considered only drawing the lines in a certain arc or distance from the currently selected unit? This might make it doable and cut down on the frame rate hit.

I know its probably already been mentioned in this thread but for me I would desperately like some way to better determine terrain relief / elevation. Currently its very time consuming for me using the LOS tool to get a feel for the relief in the game map. Grids help some but I would like to see a better solution. Perhaps a single function that shows all the squares a certain unit has LOS to and shades out or greys out all the squares it doesnt have LOS to.

It may have to do with how you selected your force, I think the TRP's need to be subordinate to your FO or the HQ who will use it.

Its interesting this concept of fun that is continuously brought up. One thing that I have noted from personal experience is that when my pixel troops survive a barrage and are still able to fight and hold their position while inflicting numerous casualties on my opponent, I call that having fun. However when I see my troops broken and routed with their dead and wounded comrades littering the ground, my fun meter has a tendency to go south for a period of time. I find it interesting that the OP didn't consider it unrealistic when his assault squad took direct fire from an IG loosing at least 25% of his squad yet was able to continue the assault. Likewise had the roles been reversed and had it been his troops who had held on after being shelled by indirect fire and repulsing an attack then I don't think we would have a 15 page thread discussing whether this game is fun or not. My point is that this game can be unforgiving even we you think your doing everything right but that's just the nature of chaos and my vision of war is that its very chaotic. For me its amazing that BF has been able to capture that vision.

Don't get discouraged, things like this happen, I had a Sherman last night that managed to get a flank shot on a MK lV from about 70M away and it took 3 rounds to finally kill the dang thing. First round upper hull penetration no effect, second round upper hull penetration and the turret starts to traverse toward the Sherman as the turret is almost fully traversed the Sherman fires a third round for a kill. The MK lV is knocked out and crew bails but the MK lV never does brew up. One thing I've learned in this game is that things don't always work out the way you plan.

YD, I think its great that you would take your time to do this but honestly I have seen enough personal evidence in this game that indirect fire is very effective. I have both delivered it to good/great effect and have been on the receiving end to my dismay on many occasions. As a result, I'm usually in the habit of giving ground when the spotting rounds start to fall because I'm very aware of the inevitable outcome. Cpt Mike has been less than forthcoming in giving details concerning his incident or any other and until he can do so, I'm ready to call his complaint BS.

Of course we all know that Cpt. Mike could have run afoul of a nearby dismounted crew with their experimental disruptor pistols and this could have been the sole cause of his squads failure to take the objective.