Rocky Balboa

I understand the gruesome aspect that these weapons bring to the table but how can you claim to simulate combat and not include these weapons and their effects? Fire effects can be simulated without resorting to displaying the burned and scorched humanity, we see this with vehicles currently. I don't see why it cant be done in other areas as well.

Don't get in a big hurry you have more time than you think. With this said I actually think its better for a beginner to play WEGO until they get a feel for the games flow and pace. When playing RT I have a tendency to plot longer movement paths which usually means one group is moving while I'm focusing on another group. This usually results in unwanted casualties. Use caution while moving especially before making contact. After the shooting starts and your able to develop the situation, you can get bolder and more aggressive with your moves. IMO RT play is better suited for something like COH or Total War type games. A game that has the tactical fidelity of CMx2 is better played in WEGO in all but the smallest of engagements.

I think CMx2 graphics are well done but of course there is always room for improvement and animations definitely need some work. I would like to see some randomness in the way the infantry models move so as to eliminate some of the robotic feeling you get when watching your troops. I always thought that having rifles pointing in different directions while moving would look more realistic. Some to the right, others to the left and not all soldiers would walk or run at port arms. Some might move with the weapon pointed up and others move with the weapon pointed downward. Some might use a modified port arms with the weapon in the crook of the arm. German soldiers would sometimes carry their weapon hanging down by their side while running or a MG gunner might carry his weapon on or across the shoulders to help distribute the weight. One big pet peeve of mine is that skating animation that you see when soldiers seem to slide into that last action square at the end of a movement. That animation really kills the realism for me personally but that's just my OP

Pretty sad when a discussion like this is the most interesting thing going right now ... BF FIX OR DO SOMEFINK !!!

@Seedorf81 I would agree with your stance on free speech except that maintaining free speech is not the purpose of this forum. I believe this forum is intended to further the discussion of CMBN not a place to try and educate the ideologically ignorant. Look for Steve to lock this up as soon as he gets off the yacht with Charlize.

Holes in bocage like any choke point will frequently be covered by enemy fire. If you can't establish enough fire superiority to go through an opening then make your own. Bocage is impassable to both infantry and tanks unless you make a hole in it. Infantry with demo charges can use the blast command and Allied tanks with Rhino attachments can also make a hole in bocage.

You might want to post this in the tech support forum here. Also include more details such as what kind of error message you are getting will help resolve your issue quicker.

IMO it is asking quite a bit to expect success from a maneuver like this. Keep in mind your troops need to crawl or move into position then identify the target, prepare/load the weapon, acquire the target, make an accurate shot, then crawl or move back into cover all within the time span of 1 minute, while possibly being under fire or at best in a high stress environment. With that said, here are the steps you would need to take to possibly pull of this maneuver. Have other infantry in the area fire on the tank and force it to button up. Plot your waypoint so that your AT team will have LOS to the tank. Click on the waypoint and issue an armored covered arc so that hopefully your team will focus on the tank and no other targets. Also give your team a time delay at that waypoint. After the time delay have them move back behind cover. Will this work in every situation? No, just like in RL there are no guarantees and the number of variables which could cause this not to work are too numerous to mention however some things you can do to increase the chance of success are: Use a team that is has good morale and good leader ship, make sure your team is in C2 with its headquarters and try to suppress the enemy target before hand. All these things will have an impact on the success or failure of this maneuver. Note: Sometimes too much suppression can cause the tank to pop smoke or reverse out of your kill zone before your troops can get a shot off. Ideally you want enough suppression to button the tank up not so much as to force it to maneuver.

Assume the scenario where every gun is automatically/magically in CC in every situation, would that be more or less realistic? I'm not going to say that understanding how C2 works in CMx2 is simple but neither is CC in RL and especially so during this time frame. I do know that maintaining C2 in CMSF for the blue force is pretty straight forward while much more of a mystery for the red force. Are their bugs in the C2 routines in CMx2 or are they working as intended? Only BF knows for sure.

The closer you get to realism the more you realize, there are some things a commander doesn't have control of, such as how efficiently your troops use the terrain to their advantage. I think what you are describing is the difference between a simulation (CMx2) and a game (CMx1). The balance BF is trying to achieve to to be more a simulation while at the same time keeping the fun and and enjoyment of being a game. Its a very fine line to walk and obviously the decisions they make wont appeal to some.

This may be fodder for another thread but how can you simulate a modern conventional war between 2 of the worlds largest armies without addressing the air to ground war and in a much more detailed way than CMSF or CMx2 does currently? I agree that comprehensive air defense capabilities would need to be simulated to prevent this from becoming a one sided affair, but I look forward to making a decision between purchasing an AD battery or another armored company. Also the tactical considerations involved around the placement of those AD assets would also be a an interesting diversion from the mundane infantry/Armor only match ups.

Ahhh ... can't wait ... Bradley's vs Bmp-3's ... M1A2's vs T90's ... Whole Btn's dissolving minutes. I can only imagine. The only thing missing would be a more in depth/detailed handling of the air to ground war. Now that would definitely be "something nice"

FOW Terrain announced for CM 3.0 = Something Nice? :cool:

Well now isn't that interesting ... Since Webwing is now one of your lead designers why not let the boy come to the boards so that he can receive a proper baptism by fire. We'll be gentle with him, I promise

Leave the man alone and let him talk. Everytime he posts, he drops little bones for us to gnaw on.

What I fail to understand is why so many people have a trouble telling the difference between an upgrade and a patch. Patches are free fixes to old code and updates are paid upgrades to new features/new code. I think as Steve said there is a significant difference in the two code bases, not just disabling a few features. Many of the differences in the code bases have to do with how the 2 versions interact with the graphic models hence the reason why so many of the bitmaps and models changed in the 2 versions. Doing what you suggest would mean BF would have to also put together a free patch to 1.x that would include all of those updated models. This would mean that you would have some players who paid for code in and upgrade that other players would get for free in a patch. Can you imagine the problems and angst within the community this would cause? Of course you can....

I'm not sure whats going on here but In suspect its has something to do with when and at one point you are saving the game. Not seen this problem myself or heard of anyone reporting this problem on these board. You might have better luck posting this in the support forum. Also make sure you read the manual on how PBEM works and pay close attention to turn sequence and when to save the game to send to your opponent.

Hmmm I have destroyed many AI mounted troops with light mortars. All it takes is one round to drop close by or heaven forbid land inside one to wipe out a whole squad.

I may be off the mark on this but I'm thinking that that engine development can only be accomplished by one or two programmers on staff at BF. Content on the other hand is being created by several people and can even be outsourced to 3rd parties. Currently I think BF has more resources for creating content so it can be created faster than engine updates and fixes.

I second what Emrys is saying here. WWII HT's are basically glorified trucks that allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks on the move. Before the shooting starts, get your guys out and let them fight on foot. Don't mistake WW2 HT's for modern day IFV's or you'll regret it.

As I recall one of the things you Mac guys bragged about years ago was that Mac didn't require you to reboot as often as Windows. Is that no longer the case

CMx2 rewards real world tactics. In most circumstances you will not lead with your tanks. Split your squads into teams and maneuver with one team while you keep the other team in support to cover the maneuver element. When you have tanks in your force, keep them in support of your maneuvering infantry (not too close but terrain will dictate how close). When your infantry have reached and secured a certain terrain objective then move your tanks up to support your next move. For your first few games take it slow and deliberate and as you get more familiar you can speed up. Stay away from scenarios that put you under a time constraint until you get the hang of things. I would suggest practicing with a few quick battles selecting an infantry platoon or smaller with one or two tanks in support. Practice maneuvering your infantry where one squad/team over watches or provides covering fire for the one that’s moving. Keep your tanks back far enough where they are out of range of enemy squad based AT weapons but can still overwatch/support your maneuvering infantry.

Ask and ye shall receive.

No official announcement from BF on the release but most everyone here believes it will be sometime in the 1 Qtr of 2013. The MG module will require you to have the 2.0 upgrade for it to install, and this is why you can get a discount if you purchase the upgrade with the module. The TOE/OOB for the Airborne troops and CW ground forces (30 XXX) changed some between Overlord (Jun 44) and Market Garden (Sep. 44). So if you purchase MG then you should be able to build/play any scenario built with the units/terrain from the MG module. If you buy the MG module but haven't purchased the CW module then I'm not sure but I would imagine there will be some holes or missing units in you Brit TOE that covers Jun-Sep 44. The rule of thumb is, any battle or campaign built using units or terrain from a certain module will require you to have that module to play the battle. Hope this helps ...

I can definitely see an improvement in performance and keep in mind that if you plan on purchasing the Market Garden module, then you can always wait and get the upgrade with the module and the cost will be $5.00 + module cost instead of $10.00 for the stand alone upgrade.