Erwin

This issue of amateur drones has been a concern since the late 90's. It's only just reached public attention. Look here to see the size and significant potential payload of hobbyists' model aircraft that have been around for a long time: https://www.google.com/search?q=large+model+aircraft&biw=1235&bih=1130&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij4OX1kdjPAhWqrFQKHdqeDp8QsAQIWA

This is fascinating. Your tutorial alone looks like a huge amount of work, never mind the dedication it takes to design a scenario. It makes me (and probably many others) realize that we will never have the time or energy to design a simple scenario, let alone a campaign. For that reason, I hope BF eventually starts designing and selling professionally-made campaign packs.

Yes, very happy about that!! Am looking forward to un upgraded CMSF more than any other title. I find that the "Euro-centric titles" all start to look and play the same. So, it will be wonderful to be back in the desert.

I dunno if the game models where equipment is situated, but the radio is usually situated in the front right of the fuselage (IIRC it is in the PzVI) and could be damaged. The antenna may be irrelevant.

Good grief...

If you mean CM1's CMBB there is still at least one gaming club using it for tournaments. WEBOB on YUKU : http://webandofbrothers.yuku.com/ WEBOB'S Birthday Bash tournament series is famous for using the largest 8K x 4K maps and around a regiment on each side(!).

That is lovely. With all that detail I could have sworn it was a larger scale than 1:72. Amazing! Now plz stop f***ing around and get back to the CMA campaign!

Am always very excited when new campaigns are available. Thank you!

I play campaigns almost exclusively as I enjoy the RL challenges of force and ammo conservation, So, I like the idea of being able to request reinforcements. However, I don't think they should be automatic. It would be good if the AI could function as a higher command and only issue reinforcements based on its evaluation of how you are doing. ie: The AI would be unlikely to reinforce obvious failure. Another idea would be the ability of the player to designate some part of one's initial force as a "reserve" in exchange for additional victory points or a higher victory level. This reserve could be held in a safe location and be unable to be moved, or the units would disappear from the set-up map and be held off-map. If one needs to call upon the reserve to move on-map, one forfeits those bonus points or victory level. Very importantly - in terms of the fun factor and to keep a campaign enjoyable and playable, one should be able to access sufficient reinforcements so that a poorer player can keep playing to the conclusion of a campaign. There is little worse than having to replay a mission several times in order to "get the right result to get to the next mission". So, the reinforcement system needs to be more generous at the easier play levels.

Maybe the best use of extra time is to complete a particularly interesting situation - one in which the AI doesn't have to do anything except defend. I can see that extra time when the AI is attacking may not be that useful. However, from a learning/training perspective it is frustrating to have a scenario end abruptly just when one is about to try out some new idea. It's also frustrating that the AI often abruptly surrenders when the player is anticipating a fun final act to the scenario. The issue is not about winning or losing or how many points one gets - it's about the fun of completing a maneuver or attack plan to an emotionally satisfying conclusion. A button to get an extra few minutes would be wonderful for that. (Yes, going into the editor and changing the scenario length parameters is possible - but what an irritating PITA - and how many of us would do that?) For that reason I also like variable endings. Womble makes a good point about where BF should commit precious resources. But, unless we know for sure how many programming-hours something is going to take, that's not a useful argument. That is totally a BF decision. We consumers simply come up with ideas and requests. There is no reason why simply coming up with new ideas/requests should elicit negative responses on these forums. Presumably, the more that customers request a feature, the more seriously BF will consider it. I hope that adding the "Ammo Dumps" feature didn't cost BF more than 10 minutes programming time. Many folks were asking for that. But, aside from one or two scenarios that BF created to showcase the Ammo Dump feature, I have not seen it used again.

The obvious reply is "go ahead and do a test".

This very questions was debated a few weeks ago. IIRC, the guys in the foxhole get the protection, the ones outside do not.

Thanks Endy... I am still quaking in my slippers re writing or pasting code. You would not believe how easily I can crash systems - which then costs a lot for an IT pro to fix. The intelligence are always trying to get me to go work for the Russians (or ISIS).

+1 Good post.

Am completely puzzled why it is so controversial to give players the OPTION of extending a scenario. No one is saying that a player MUST extend if they don't want to. I can't understand this discussion thread at all. Threads where simply asking for an OPTION to do something in the game results in such "out of proportion" negative responses reveals some personality issues that might fascinate a shrink.

Re the link, I got: The website declined to show this webpage HTTP 403 Most likely causes: This website requires you to log in. What you can try: Go back to the previous page.Go back to the previous page.

An operational or strategic game would illustrate the above challenges well. At the small tactical level of CM2, am not sure there would be significant difference in "feel" compared with the existing CMBS. But, such a product could be successful at appealing to a wider market purely from the timeliness (and controversial nature) of such a game.

Need to specify what "a great deal of money" is.

It does appear that the visibility issue was key. It may have mandated that the allies attack with everything at the start to take advantage of the short LOS. The Axis have the weapons that are more effective at longer ranges. Very interesting scenario challanges.

I enjoyed H&D as well. Took a quick Google at CMANO. Is that as complex as Grigsby's WITPAE - but for modern warfare??

These screenshots are stunning. But, I don't understand what one is supposed to do re "Reshade 3 beta 9" to achieve this visual effect. Is this something that non-programmers should avoid messing with??

By any chance did the ghost of a dead king appear, walking over the palace walls muttering "Something rotten in the state of Denmark."?

+1 for North Africa. I really enjoy going back to CMSF as the terrain is so different/wide open compared with all the European/Russian game families. (Yes, I love the desert and burning sun so much that I spend most of my time in those regions in RL.)

Am I correct that Atlantic Fleet is kinda WEGO? IIRC it's played in turns and your ships are stationary while the other side shoots etc. There was an xnt naval game some years (decades?) ago that was in real or accelerated time like the SH series. That was fun, but got repetitive quickly.

Ian - I have responded to your PM's but am not sure if you received ok. (And I will be away from computer till end of the week.)