Erwin

Uh, not sure if this is obvious (re Ironcross13's comment), but all the games mentioned in this thread are computer wargames not cardboard wargames. If you want to discuss cardboard wargames, there are literally thousands of high quality cardboard wargames available from a surprisingly healthy bunch of companies. I must have over 1,000 cardboard wargames stocked up in my nuclear bunker for when the "collapse of financial system and life as we know it" happens. And I stopped collecting board wargames when I discovered CM1 back 1998/1999!

Wash yer mouth out with soap mate. If BF is done, then high-quality computer wargaming is done. We might have to go back to cardboard wargames.

I assume that when using a spotter, no mortars or any other artillery can target anything that moves. Re mortars used as direct fire weapons... do they automatically retarget to follow a moving target?

Enjoying Grigsby's War In The Pacific AE. It's a good contrast game when the regular CM2 burnout hits.

It looked like the PzV saw and shot at the M4 as the latter was moving into position. Then it just "forgot" about it. A good video to support the idea of some sort of memory so a tank doesn't forget and rotate back its turret so quickly.

That shouldn't happen in RL surely. Aren't the barrels gyroscopically leveled?

PS: Do we have the weapon range + caliber mod that all the other WW2 titles had? (Wish we also had that for CMBS. Puzzling why that hasn't been added.)

On my system (approx): CMSF: Over 500 Scenarios + about 43 Campaigns CMBN: Almost 350 Scens and about 35 Campaigns CMFI: 387 Scens + 15 Campaigns CMRT: 100 Scens + 15 Campaigns CMBS: 45 Scens + 8 Campaigns CMFB: 31 Scens + 4 Campaigns Yes, the older games have more of each. But, even taking that into account, the decline is very significant esp for campaigns. I suspect that volunteer designers are burning out. Hope the customer base is not going the same way. And while am sure the game is better H2H, most people play vs the AI. (Eg: In my case cos it's way more convenient to not worry about keeping an oppo waiting when I have to stop playing for months on end. Fortunately, BF has yet to implement the AI feature that sends nasty e-mails to slow players.)

Thanks Vin.

"You can have an Engineer remain alongside the mine area for a long time and you might in some rare instances..." Generally I agree with SE's points. However, the more experienced and IIRC the number of engineers in or adjacent to a known minefield (and not under fire) will make a big difference in how long it takes to mark a minefield. With god quality (or even merely good quality) engineers it could take only a couple of turns. But, it's still time consuming if it's a large minefield, and if they are under fire that will take a lot longer (if they succeed at all).

You may still want to rename some of the "Briefing" comments as "Designer Notes". The one before the first mission gives historical BG and has nothing to do with a "Briefing" and its confusing. It's also recommended that you put instructions like the ones you posted above in those Designer Notes, so that the player knows what they are supposed to do next. It's way too much to expect players to carefully examine notes and/or threads outside of the game itself to figure out your intentions - esp when you are attempting something completely new and non-intuitive. You will find that most players just want to get into the "action" and may only later return to read up on the historical details. Make it easy for players to get into your campaign, not unnecessarily complex.

Fired this baby up and there may be a problem or two(?) The first mission "Briefing" should more accurately be described as "Designer Notes" and I didn't see any actual "Briefing" as to what the player is supposed to do. More importantly, when I got to the first mission 3D map I get two tanks on a completely flat featureless map. I hope this is due to some issue on my end. On the plus side, the designer notes at the start of the campaign explaining historical situation was well written.

Early war would be a very high %. Late war the rate was much less. Re a precise %, isn't this a Google thing?

Ok, that's what I originally thought and then I confused myself by thinking this referred to Strykers... Confused...? Join the club. So... What I meant to ask was do these tests apply to all Red IFV's (all BMP's and BTR's) or does this research apply only to a certain vehicle or vehicles?

Downloaded it. Will try asap. Thank you...

"This is a strange thing...the lack of community scenarios being made for CM right now.It feels like no one can really put a finger on it and explanin WHY this is the case." Seems pretty obvious when you look at the amount of work involved compared to (say) CM1). The lack of user-made campaigns is even more serious. It seems that when a new guy comes along he has the enthusiasm and energy to make something. But, the burn out rate is high. Compare the number of user-made scenarios and campaigns in CMSF to CMFB. There has been a serious decline in quantity over the years as new games are released. Some of us have been saying that we'd be prepared to pay BF for professionally produced campaigns and scenarios. Without fresh content this game system is more a toy for graphics enthusiasts who love models and modding. (I find individual scenarios a bit boring/repetitive. The game system shines with campaigns as one has to deal with more RL issues like force preservation and ammo conservation.) Conversely, now that BF is releasing new games in the CM2 system on a fairly regular basis, it can be hard to finish all scenarios in one game family before the next one is released. Lack of campaigns on the other hand are a much more serious problem in that BF usually only include a couple of campaigns with a new game, and due to the work involved, there are very few user-made campaigns being developed afterwards these days. I find scenarios a nThis is a strange thing...the lack of community scenarios being made for CM right now.It feels like no one can really put a finger on it and explanin WHY this is the case.

I don't have stats but every IT guy recommends SSD's to me and I have upgraded my old machines to SSD's and just got a new laptop with a (bloody expensive) 2TB SSD (as it's hard/impossible to upgrade a laptop later). The speed improvement is noticeable.

You are doing a great job! If you keep improving you campaign like this, I feel almost lucky to have had so many computer issues and delays. I am looking forward to your "final, final" version.

Ah... so is the following only good for Strykers, or useful for or IFV's like BMP's?? "Only gunner and driver: average spotting time of strykers and engagement : 11-12 seconds With scout team inside: 6-7 seconds With squad leader led team inside : 6-7 seconds BUT: Average engagement cycle and destruction of the two strikers targets with scout team inside: 35 seconds Average engagement cycle and destruction of the two strikers targets with squad leader Led team inside : 27 seconds"

It will be v interesting to see what effect/advantage the german gun shield is re frontal fire vs defilade. Thanks for doing this.

I agree, W is absolutely correct. The problem is that there are very few if any missions that allow enuff time, to go around with engineers spending several turns of sitting stationery trying to spot possible minefields. You have know pretty accurately where there are minefields to ID them within the timeframe of a CM2 game. Hence the "normal" method of only dispatching engineers to mark a minefield where a lesser value inf unit has just got blown up.

Someone pointed out that the guns can be set to fire at different rates. So, I wonder if that also is creating the difference in the above sound samples. The first example sounds like a faster rate to me. Without knowing the actual rate etc....

The design was probably accidentally stolen from the Italians.

Ditto. Very useful info. Thank you.