Erwin

Making observations to accompany other peoples' posts is not complaining - unless one is of a totalitarian mindset that anything that isn't fully positive/supportive of one's personal prejudice/POV must be suppressed. I'd hoped that we'd gotten over that nonsense a few years ago.

"I have two neighbors on my street who have suddenly expressed interest and one is actively trying it." Well that decides the debate then. CM2 is completely 100% successful, the $ is pouring in, and whomever dares to question that is a wanker. BTW: I bet their mothers also became instant fans. (Sorry in advance - couldn't resist...)

LOL Actually that is a really good example of how camo may look great/effective in a 2D image/photo when in RL the location of the trooper would be much more er... obvious.

"...gamers seem to not understand that the game engine is dependent on a lot of things including the ToE structure." Of course most of us understand that. But, CM1 managed to feature a pretty comprehensive set of ToE's for the entire war. So, it's not that it's impossible. BF chose to do things in a certain way for whatever good reasons they had at the time. And that's fine. But, one would have to be an uber-fanatic to insist that it has been ideal.

The CM1 games (CMBO, CMBB and CMAK) were incredibly good value as those three enabled one to play any era and any theatre of WW2 and each included almost every type of unit an average WW2 gamer could imagine. They should have cost several hundred $ each. (Well, CMBB and CMAK shoulda.) But, that pricing point wasn't realistic for consumers. Presumably if BF tried to duplicate CM1 in CM2 it would take far longer and each game would need to cost $300-$400. It makes $ sense to break each era and theatre into individual modules - so BF can in effect charge several hundred $ for each "family" - but since one pays in "installments" it's not so painful as forking out huge $ in one go. The challenge is now that we have many different games on our HD's - a large % of space used for mostly duplicate content, plus a complex system of upgrades and modules, and such a slow rate of production of new content that one wonders if we'll ever see the early eras before CM3, assuming there will be a CM3, b4 many of the customer base burn out or die off. But since CM remains a labor of love by such a small company. and no one else is doing anything of this quality, we have to be grateful that BF is developing this amazing game system at all.

But I like being a hero and popular with my pixeltruppen... and I rarely get fragged.

I definitely do not speak on anyone's behalf - not sure why you read it like that. Just my suppositions from reading between the lines and observation. Being on these boards for almost 20 years can fill one's head with info of all types. The saga here is like a long-running TV series - hard to predict what happens next, and totally addictive...

I doubt we will ever see an updated CMA. IIRC it was made by a Russian subcontractor and the relationship apparently didn't work out well. So what we got is what we'll ever get. A brand new "CMA" era game to accompany CMSF2 would be wonderful. But, the module biz plan BF has adopted for CM2 means that getting products covering other eras or theatres are glacially slow. Am more worried that we'll never get any earlier eras done in the WW2 game family series. Will probably get to a CM3 well before we get to early WW2. What is fascinating is to consider how long a single game concept like CM can continue. CM2, while more sophisticated, is basically the same concept as CM1 - so 19 years old now. It's a shame that BF had to reduce their work force so BF is back to where it was in the early days in terms of manpower and presumably capabilities.

"The fact that some buildings in the editor don't cover a whole action spot." That would explain why it's possible to flatten a wall and/or damage a building and get no penalty. But, in general, if one is not indiscriminate one should not be penalized for destruction. During the dozens, maybe hundreds of CM2 mission I have played where one has to preserve certain structures, after a few mortar hits on a roof, or a wall being flattened or a house damaged, it's quite common to suffer no penalty. As SS said, you have to go "The Full Stalingrad" to be sure of being penalized. And that seems good, since if one knows that an enemy is holed up in a particular building, flattening it is not "indiscriminate" destruction.

"The Full Stalingrad" - yah... I like that phrase.

What this info needs to be put in is an online CM2 manual that can be referenced. Wish it was available when CM2 came out with CMSF 10(!) years ago.

Not sure if a designer can stipulate a certain % of damage b4 penalty points are awarded. However, I have been surprised at how much damage can be inflicted without incurring a penalty. Have found it quite common to have inadvertently flattened a couple of buildings where there may be a dozen or so to be protected and still not be penalized in the final score. So, am not sure if this feature is something to worry about - so long as you don't try to flatten a significant number of buildings. Having tanks etc use TARGET LIGHT is safe. One or two HE blasts vs a small-medium building is usually safe. Two or three minute bursts of 30mm and similar vs a small-medium building is usually safe. Large buildings can take a lot of HE fire b4 a penalty occurs.

IIRC Tac Ops is simply a top down very complex 2D game. Not much comparison to the CM 3D approach.

Ah. It doesn't work in WEGO. Didn't get that bit. (I thought they meant if a unit is moving at the end of a WEGO turn one could then give it a PAUSE so it has an upright stance for the next WEGO minute.)

Well, Sgt S just made a very good point about R/C flying and how easy it is to jam - and I hadn't even considered the implications for AMAZON. The thing with self-driving cars... I don't think anyone has thought through the implications for the automobile industry... Look at the ads. They are all about the car making you a more exciting individual, the power, the sexiness, the control etc. What happens to high performance cars when we're all in boxes that all move at the same speed with the same acceleration? I live in a part of the US where Uber is testing its self-driving cars. So I have seen the "future". I am living it every day. And the Uber self-driving cars already "drive" me nuts. They all go at the same speed like buses. Incredibly boring "driving" experience. They can block all lanes of traffic like we will all be driven by grandma. In other words, they can block the road for anyone who wants to go a bit faster so one can beat those %$^^R^s to a light b4 it turns red. During the transition period, how will self-driving cars and regular drivers co-exist? It's can be quite dangerous to overtake one as one is never quite sure how it will react. What happens to high performance brands like BMW, Ferrari...? Anyone who enjoys the driving will be PO'd since I can't see how self-drive and regular cars can co-exist. Don't see that as pessimism - am merely using analytical thinking to look a bit further ahead than "Gee whiz, isn't this amazing". And that's before we get to the possibility of jamming and hostile takeover of a car's or drone's AI. If banks and Equifax can't protect themselves, you know it's going to happen. (And then there's Musk claiming he can get men to Mars in 5 years, or that we'll be flying cars by 2025. This is a huge con to attract financing from marks who want to get rich(er) quick. How can anyone believe this nonsense?)

That is puzzling since we all had a discussion about LOS being measured from a unit's "eyes". So, if the unit is upright (ie: it is ordered to PAUSE when in the middle of a movement) it should have as good LOS as when moving. Or, am I interpreting those findings wrong? Am also assuming this is true for the WW2 CM titles as well as CMBS. When I tried this in CMSF (in WEGO), it didn't seem to matter if the unit was paused or not. Individual soldiers were either lying down or kneeling - but at random. I couldn't see any pattern or reason for all lying, all kneeling, or some in each stance. No one was standing.

Yup - I would predict that Amazon aerial delivery along with self-driving cars are one big financial con.

Have you tried that trick of giving a PAUSE while they are moving? Am curious if that enables them to maintain LOS and shoot.

I have a BF vid screen mod (available for the "Twilight 2000" mod). So, presumably one can delete it If you know where to find it.

The sad thing is that some folks were warning about this a over decade ago. Of course, now it's called a "new" threat. Pack this baby full of explosives: This video is fascinating - someone built an entire functioning model airport:

Yes, those 2 are ok. Be aware that IIRC they are infantry-centric, so rather limited in scope. If you prefer combined arms and some vehicles...

You have been missed, Phil. Hope things settle down and you can get back here soon.

Covering the whole war was the original idea - to duplicate what the original CM1 games gave us in one game. It makes commercial sense to split the games up into different eras. However, at the current rate of production it does seem doubtful that we'll get to 1939 invasion of Poland within some of our lifetimes. And with talk of a CM3 engine, who knows... However, I kinda hope that BF has changed priorities re WW2 and made CMSF2 the priority. That would seem to be the most likely to garner sales while the topic is so current. Even though the WW2 titles are more technically advanced I got burned out on the European terrains and weather. Have been going back to CMSF and even CMA for a lovely change of scenery (as well as blues skies and sunshine).

It's a bit hard to judge how the new versions of the engines have affected the older non-updated campaign (or scenarios). I would recommend the newer offerings created in the last year that one can d/l. Dragonwynn has authored several new campaigns over the last year and from the one's I have attempted and from comments of others, they seem to all be done well. Right now, CMSF is threatening to become the most interesting and most active game per its threads(!). So, I would not count it out at all. Some interesting new concepts as well as interesting force mixes and situations can be found in the "Heart of Darkness" CMSF campaign. Sgt Squarehead is also innovating and testing some good new ideas in CMSF.

I really like these "interesting concept" missions featuring some new design ideas. They help breathe fresh life into the "aging" CM system. I dunno if you plan on using mines in any of your missions. But, it occurred to me that if mines are used in any CM game mission then engineers/pioneers should always be included in the force mix. It may not be accurate in terms of what sort of units are normally present. But, in RL, reg troops would be able to at least mark mine locations. In CM, we have no other way, other than using eng/pioneers, to mark mines and make em a bit safer. So, engineers would be an abstraction in my example. The other advantage is that one could then set up an approximation of mine clearing by indicating (to the player) an area of the map where mines are suspected, and use the engineers/pioneers for that purpose, while at the same time having the main operation such as the one in "Hornet's Nest" proceed over the rest of the map.